The reason BOD was dropped

First topic message reminder :

Many people are saying hes played poorly, hes paid the price for lack of attacking impetus, hes no longer a force to be reckoned with etc etc

I dont think this is true. Firstly, he hasnt been "poor". But neither has his form merited him undroppable. Hes been excellent in defence and in attack hes been fairly ananamymous. But this is the case with the Lions in general. Some are making him out as the scapegoat. I cant agree. The Lions lack of attacking success starts far earlier than BOD. The pack have not enjoyed nearly the kind of dominance expected. Ball has been slow. The set peice has creaked. The distribution to Sexton is poor. In short, there is no platform or go forward which largely lies with the pack and hasnt been helped by Philips in particular who was poor in the first test. Few Lions have stood out as performing particularly well. Gatlands gameplan wasnt hard to spot and relied on smashing the Aussies with a pack and set peice that was expected to dominate. It hasnt happened at the whole team has been misfiring as a result. BOD hasnt played amazingly, but his function has been largely a defensive one thanks to the way the games have panned out. Hes performed that well.

Next, it is probably incorrectly assumed that BOD was a shoe in for Gatland anyway. His position in the team selected itself thanks to injury concerns and now that there is full compliment of centres available hes been left out. I think people are wrongly assuming its because hes played poorly. He maybe was never an automatic to begin with and Gatland might well have favoured his Welsh pairing with whom he is more familiar with anyway. Now that the pressure is really on, Gatland has retreated back into what he is most familiar with. Trying to overpower the Aussies with a Welsh oriented Lions squad. My concern is it conservative and history suggests both that it hasnt worked in the past and that the Aussies are familiar with it now.

Its difficut to be ambitious on a Lions tour with limited game time and the natural tendancy is to stick with what you know. History suggests a tightish game that Australia will win. BOD is most likely just a casualty of Gatlands overall strategy rather than a player dropped for being poor or past it. To be honest, the Lions play and set up is in its coaches image and Gatland is persisting with the same kind of approach he has thrown at the Aussies time and time again. Other than the Warratahs game, the Lions have been largely unimpressive and their gameplan has failed this far but thanks to fortunate circumstances in the first test where they nicked a win, and a quality goalkicker they are still in the series.

flyhalffactory wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

O'Driscoll and Roberts were an established pairing. Ahem 4 YEARS AGO for four games. Roberts/Davies have started together 29 out of last 36 international games. Based on that scenario there is only one logical conclusion

Gatland knew that, but then again Gatland wasn't choosing the team in SA.  Hmmmm.

O'Driscoll and Tuilagi were the most exciting centre unit (potentially) on tour.  No go there either.
Very Doubtful they played one game together against a very average side

Sexton and Phillips always work well for Ireland and yeah, at least he picked that familiar unit correctly and left Murray on the bench.
Strewth I cant even reply to that.......... why not just pick the whole Irish 23 then as they all know each other inside out, or why not pick Roberts/Davies based on your argument

O'Driscoll would have partnered either Roberts or Tuilagi equally as effectively as Davies - at least AGREE.  And on evidence, he'd have damn well defended much better than Davies RUBBISH.

Gatland picked His BOD not the BOD, and that was the only technical, strategic, tactical thinking in it.  He's mine, BOD ain't. Headache now I read that time and time again and it made less sense every time

I'm even seriously beginning to think words after the second test might have spoiled a few 'perfect' unions.

TAXI

No DO reply to it, fly.  Be a man.  Davies Roberts because they are a unit (said by Welsh guys here over and over as excuse for what they know is crap) and yet underperforming Phillips is linked up with Sexton?  Sexton being perhaps the most crucial gameplay maker in the side (no not because he's Irish before you jump at the affront - because he's the 10)  

Wouldn't Gatland, if he was thinking smooth units think Sexton and better performing Murray?  Come on, do the strategy maps on it.  You know it's true  But nope, it's not true because it doesn't fit your slick Welsh theories.  Everyone is just gotta be worse than the Welsh alternative.

As for an Irish 23?  Good idea.  They'd have as good a crack at the three tests as the Gloriously decorated Lions have been having to date.  You seriously think there's nothing else out there that could beat this Wallaby crew?

flyhalffactory wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:
Comfortable tracking JOC!!! beggars belief

If that is the case then
HOW THE HELL DIDNT HE TACKLE HIM BEFORE POC PASSED THE BALL. I mean he didn't even get to him before the ball was distributed, Dricco tacked late because he most definitely wasn't ever going to catch him

The point is within those nano seconds players have to make decisions, to blame Foxy when he was always face on face with his opposite number and BOD has to scramble defence out of a ruck when there was no reason at all for him to be there is kinda rich. The tactics were wrong the player tackled themselves to a standstill, BOD and Foxy played under (poor) instructions. BOD and Foxy weren't a million miles away on performance. Its been consistent since the end of the 2nd test that Davies was to blame for the try but the evidence is damning.

He didn't tackle him before he JoC passed because he'd have to be offside to get up that quickly.Look at the video JoC never gets outside BoD he starts about 5 yards inside him actually lined up inside Lydiate and then uses his depth to fix Davies.

Offside!!!!!!!!!!!! what from a ruck when POC was 15 yards behind the ruck

For goodness sake man......... I have put the extract on here and gone through it second by second.........

HE WAS BEHIND THE FLAMING RUCK WHEN THE THREE AUSSIES WERE LINING UP waiting for the ball to be released from the breakdown.......... HE SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN THERE

SOB I am having a breakdown here

Boll..ks to this I am shutting shop on this little interlude..... you are right BOD was position-ally spot on and didn't pressurise Davies into a defensive no mans land. Davies went for the wrong man and cant tackle for pants. Its all Foxys fault and he should be horsewhipped and branded the guy that lost the second test for the Lions.

Why the hell did we take the useless donkey?, drop him now and reinstate Dricco

From the camera angle from the side of the pitch it looked (to me) like Davies dithered. From behind I honestly cannot understand how you can have the opinion you do have. It was a perfect example of drift defence and would have easily been snuffed out if Davies had stayed on his man (unless someone missed a tackle). It was bloody textbook.

flyhalffactory wrote:

Fly (am I talking to myself...... you are not 6 6 and played blindside for 20 yrs are you by any chance?)

The simple fact is did BOD nail his man before the pass went.............. NO.
Davies should never have risked not covering POC, he was on a loser either way, he should never have been put in that situation. It was a defensive nightmare

NO MORE NO MORE.............. I am walking away from this argument

You're walking away because you are talking absolute............ guess the rest.  Davies shouldn't have been placed in the situation of what?  Playing in a full on International?  And thinking on his feet quickly and following a player with his eye and nailing him?  Do I blame him?  No.  he missed.  It happens.  He was the one in the wrong.  Not BOD.  Tell a different story a million times and you'll still be wrong.

And when people point it out, you slide back into the less meaty, well, Davies couldn't help it.  Not the point, you keep insinuating that BOD was responsible.  He wasn't.  Games happen in front of you not on a blackboard.  He didn't trust BOD to do his job even though BOD was indictating to him to do just that.

flyhalffactory wrote:


Offside!!!!!!!!!!!! what from a ruck when POC was 15 yards behind the ruck

For goodness sake man......... I have put the extract on here and gone through it second by second.........

HE WAS BEHIND THE FLAMING RUCK WHEN THE THREE AUSSIES WERE LINING UP waiting for the ball to be released from the breakdown.......... HE SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN THERE

SOB I am having a breakdown here

Boll..ks to this I am shutting shop on this little interlude..... you are right BOD was position-ally spot on and didn't pressurise Davies into a defensive no mans land. Davies went for the wrong man and cant tackle for pants. Its all Foxys fault and he should be horsewhipped and branded the guy that lost the second test for the Lions.

Why the hell did we take the useless donkey?, drop him now and reinstate Dricco

When was BoD behind the ruck look at the video from behind JoC starts his run from behind the ruck and BoD is at least 5 yards to the right of the ruck.Lydiate is between BoD and the ruck so there's no way what you're saying makes sense.It was 4 defenders v 2 attackers Lydiate,Bod,Davies,Bowe.JoC ran from behind the ruck on an outside arc and Lydiate correctly held his position to defend an inside ball or step back inside,BoD correctly followed his man and tackled him as soon as humanly possible,Bowe correctly covered the winger and only Davies made the mistake of ball watching and allowing his man an easy run in.

I have to apologise for being so outright hostile with this post but needs must.  Sorry Flyhalf, your analysis is absolute garbage.  Sorry to be so blunt.  It is utterly, utterly, utterly clueless.  I agree with you on manys an issue but you have Gatlanditis here, ie, you have decided on your course of opinion beforehand and damn the evidence.  Every line of your analysis contains an inaccuracy.  It is absolutely open and closed. And to say that someone with an Irish accent who at least has the foresight to use the correct angle is somehow 'biased' is completely laughable.  Accusing anyone of bias and then producing such shoddy, incorrect analysis which is not even close to what the video shows undermines the credibility of your argument.  To accuse anyone of bias and then use an inconclusive camera angle in preference over one that tells the complete story is quite frankly comical and leaves you with no credit.    

Let's forget you can't even get the name of the players right, unless POC has aged backwards, grown some hair, slimed down and turned into an Aussie.  You can't see Davies telling BOD 3 on 2, or anything for that matter.  We can't see his face.  There is a possible, though entirely inconclusive hand motion.  I'm not sure if his hand just went out of shot, but it appears he is marshalling those outside him, not inside.    When the ball is released BOD isn't near the ruck- he is in position.  He shouldn't run to the 13 channel because he is defending the 12, as he did for much of the match.    This face on face stuff doesn't make sense.  Drift defending close to line wouldn't require this.  Submarine has said it above so I won't repeat what he said.  Suffice to say your view is so unbelievably basic, over simplistic and begs questions about your level of knowledge about the game.  

The rear camera view tells the story, but your analysis of course doesn't even look at it.  You have utterly ignored this evidence, which is clear as day as to the relative position of players, in preference for an angled view which doesn't back up your theory.  If you even bothered to look from 3:41 on your video you would see where BOD is when the ball is released.  He is nowhere near the middle of the ruck as you suggest. Nowhere near it.  He hasn't just arrived there either.  You know how we know?  Because he is stationary when the ball is delivered.  At 3.42 and 3.43 you can see quite clearly that BOD has JOC completely covered.  Davies is too close, nowhere near the man running into his channel.  Its very poor positioning.  

There are so many things wrong with it that it is embarrassing to see you stand over it with such gusto.  JOC is completely covered by BOD, he isn't going to score.  Davies is far too close to BOD, out of position.  The camera angle that shows this clearly has been ignored by you.  And yet you have the audacity to say that someone's analysis, which is spot on, is bias because they are Irish?  Utterly crass and trite, and considering the 'evidence' you produce, washed down with a gallon full of irony.    

Theres a legal maxim, when the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side argue the facts.  When you don’t have the law on your side, when you don’t have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.  You have neither, and all you can do is stomp your little hands as loudly and petulantly as you can.  The evidence you have used is wrong, full of factual errors of the most basic kind.  Its laughable and makes an absolute mockery of you.  I retract a statement from earlier.  Even Bluesman would not be so arrogant and incoherent in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Wow, flyhalffactory is a very angry poster  

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I have to apologise for being so outright hostile with this post but needs must.  Sorry Flyhalf, your analysis is absolute garbage.  Sorry to be so blunt.  It is utterly, utterly, utterly clueless.  I agree with you on manys an issue but you have Gatlanditis here, ie, you have decided on your course of opinion beforehand and damn the evidence.  Every line of your analysis contains an inaccuracy.  It is absolutely open and closed. And to say that someone with an Irish accent who at least has the foresight to use the correct angle is somehow 'biased' is completely laughable.  Accusing anyone of bias and then producing such shoddy, incorrect analysis which is not even close to what the video shows undermines the credibility of your argument.  To accuse anyone of bias and then use an inconclusive camera angle in preference over one that tells the complete story is quite frankly comical and leaves you with no credit.    

Let's forget you can't even get the name of the players right, unless POC has aged backwards, grown some hair, slimed down and turned into an Aussie.  You can't see Davies telling BOD 3 on 2, or anything for that matter.  We can't see his face.  There is a possible, though entirely inconclusive hand motion.  I'm not sure if his hand just went out of shot, but it appears he is marshalling those outside him, not inside.    When the ball is released BOD isn't near the ruck- he is in position.  He shouldn't run to the 13 channel because he is defending the 12, as he did for much of the match.    This face on face stuff doesn't make sense.  Drift defending close to line wouldn't require this.  Submarine has said it above so I won't repeat what he said.  Suffice to say your view is so unbelievably basic, over simplistic and begs questions about your level of knowledge about the game.  

The rear camera view tells the story, but your analysis of course doesn't even look at it.  You have utterly ignored this evidence, which is clear as day as to the relative position of players, in preference for an angled view which doesn't back up your theory.  If you even bothered to look from 3:41 on your video you would see where BOD is when the ball is released.  He is nowhere near the middle of the ruck as you suggest. Nowhere near it.  He hasn't just arrived there either.  You know how we know?  Because he is stationary when the ball is delivered.  At 3.42 and 3.43 you can see quite clearly that BOD has JOC completely covered.  Davies is too close, nowhere near the man running into his channel.  Its very poor positioning.  

There are so many things wrong with it that it is embarrassing to see you stand over it with such gusto.  JOC is completely covered by BOD, he isn't going to score.  Davies is far too close to BOD, out of position.  The camera angle that shows this clearly has been ignored by you.  And yet you have the audacity to say that someone's analysis, which is spot on, is bias because they are Irish?  Utterly crass and trite, and considering the 'evidence' you produce, washed down with a gallon full of irony.    

Theres a legal maxim, when the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side argue the facts.  When you don’t have the law on your side, when you don’t have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.  You have neither, and all you can do is stomp your little hands as loudly and petulantly as you can.  The evidence you have used is wrong, full of factual errors of the most basic kind.  Its laughable and makes an absolute mockery of you.  I retract a statement from earlier.  Even Bluesman would not be so arrogant and incoherent in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Nice post there. To summarise for those who haven't read it. Davies was at fault for AAC's try. His positioning in defence and attack has been poor.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I have to apologise for being so outright hostile with this post but needs must.  Sorry Flyhalf, your analysis is absolute garbage.  Sorry to be so blunt.  It is utterly, utterly, utterly clueless.  I agree with you on manys an issue but you have Gatlanditis here, ie, you have decided on your course of opinion beforehand and damn the evidence.  Every line of your analysis contains an inaccuracy.  It is absolutely open and closed. And to say that someone with an Irish accent who at least has the foresight to use the correct angle is somehow 'biased' is completely laughable.  Accusing anyone of bias and then producing such shoddy, incorrect analysis which is not even close to what the video shows undermines the credibility of your argument.  To accuse anyone of bias and then use an inconclusive camera angle in preference over one that tells the complete story is quite frankly comical and leaves you with no credit.    

Let's forget you can't even get the name of the players right, unless POC has aged backwards, grown some hair, slimed down and turned into an Aussie.  You can't see Davies telling BOD 3 on 2, or anything for that matter.  We can't see his face.  There is a possible, though entirely inconclusive hand motion.  I'm not sure if his hand just went out of shot, but it appears he is marshalling those outside him, not inside.    When the ball is released BOD isn't near the ruck- he is in position.  He shouldn't run to the 13 channel because he is defending the 12, as he did for much of the match.    This face on face stuff doesn't make sense.  Drift defending close to line wouldn't require this.  Submarine has said it above so I won't repeat what he said.  Suffice to say your view is so unbelievably basic, over simplistic and begs questions about your level of knowledge about the game.  

The rear camera view tells the story, but your analysis of course doesn't even look at it.  You have utterly ignored this evidence, which is clear as day as to the relative position of players, in preference for an angled view which doesn't back up your theory.  If you even bothered to look from 3:41 on your video you would see where BOD is when the ball is released.  He is nowhere near the middle of the ruck as you suggest. Nowhere near it.  He hasn't just arrived there either.  You know how we know?  Because he is stationary when the ball is delivered.  At 3.42 and 3.43 you can see quite clearly that BOD has JOC completely covered.  Davies is too close, nowhere near the man running into his channel.  Its very poor positioning.  

There are so many things wrong with it that it is embarrassing to see you stand over it with such gusto.  JOC is completely covered by BOD, he isn't going to score.  Davies is far too close to BOD, out of position.  The camera angle that shows this clearly has been ignored by you.  And yet you have the audacity to say that someone's analysis, which is spot on, is bias because they are Irish?  Utterly crass and trite, and considering the 'evidence' you produce, washed down with a gallon full of irony.    

Theres a legal maxim, when the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side argue the facts.  When you don’t have the law on your side, when you don’t have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.  You have neither, and all you can do is stomp your little hands as loudly and petulantly as you can.  The evidence you have used is wrong, full of factual errors of the most basic kind.  Its laughable and makes an absolute mockery of you.  I retract a statement from earlier.  Even Bluesman would not be so arrogant and incoherent in the face of overwhelming evidence.

well done h&h..no mention of kidney...and an excellent if slightly detailed response

SecretFly wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Fly (am I talking to myself...... you are not 6 6 and played blindside for 20 yrs are you by any chance?)

The simple fact is did BOD nail his man before the pass went.............. NO.
Davies should never have risked not covering POC, he was on a loser either way, he should never have been put in that situation. It was a defensive nightmare

NO MORE NO MORE.............. I am walking away from this argument

You're walking away because you are talking absolute............ guess the rest.  Davies shouldn't have been placed in the situation of what?  Playing in a full on International?  And thinking on his feet quickly and following a player with his eye and nailing him?  Do I blame him?  No.  he missed.  It happens.  He was the one in the wrong.  Not BOD.  Tell a different story a million times and you'll still be wrong.

And when people point it out, you slide back into the less meaty, well, Davies couldn't help it.  Not the point, you keep insinuating that BOD was responsible.  He wasn't.  Games happen in front of you not on a blackboard.  He didn't trust BOD to do his job even though BOD was indictating to him to do just that.

I am insinuating the exact opposite Neither BOD or Davies was singularly to blame. This whole sorry affair started way back when one or two posters wacked some espn (b0ll0cks data classification) to justify BODs vastly superior performance and the blamed the try on Davies. Both are gash and the video evidence of the match in general and the build up to the try is conclusive. I have had loads of private messages of all nationalities who don't want to get embroiled in the dispute (unlike the daft beggar that I am) saying they followed the link and pause at those precise moments and its kinda a sledgehammer to the chops.

You Fly my good mate are very much blind with both eyes taken out, and sold in never never land for a bag of magic beans. Unfortunately you cannae grow another O'Driscoll so cut the mother off your shoulder and let it go. Saying that if us Scots had BOD in our midfield for the last 15 years I would be the same as you eyes shut and fingers in my ears BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH CAN'T HEAR YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I have to apologise for being so outright hostile with this post but needs must.  Sorry Flyhalf, your analysis is absolute garbage.  Sorry to be so blunt.  It is utterly, utterly, utterly clueless.  I agree with you on manys an issue but you have Gatlanditis here, ie, you have decided on your course of opinion beforehand and damn the evidence.  Every line of your analysis contains an inaccuracy.  It is absolutely open and closed. And to say that someone with an Irish accent who at least has the foresight to use the correct angle is somehow 'biased' is completely laughable.  Accusing anyone of bias and then producing such shoddy, incorrect analysis which is not even close to what the video shows undermines the credibility of your argument.  To accuse anyone of bias and then use an inconclusive camera angle in preference over one that tells the complete story is quite franKly comical and leaves you with no credit.    

Let's forget you can't even get the name of the players right, unless POC has aged backwards, grown some hair, slimed down and turned into an Aussie.  You can't see DavIes telling BOD 3 on 2, or anything for that matter.  We can't see his face.  There is a possible, though entirely inconclusive hand motion.  I'm not sure if his hand just went out of shot, but it appears he is marshalling those outside him, not inside.    When the ball is released BOD isn't near the ruck- he is in position.  He shouldn't run to the 13 channel because he is defeNding the 12, as he did for much of the match.    This face on face stuff doesn't make sense.  Drift defending close to line wouldn't require this.  Submarine has said it above so I won't repEat what he said.  Suffice to say your view is so unbelievably basic, over simplistic and begs questions about your level of knowledge about the game.  

The rear camera view tells the story, but your analysis of course doesn't even look at it.  You have utterly ignored this evidence, which is clear as day as to the relative position of players, in preference for an angled view which doesn't back up your theory.  If you even bothered to look from 3:41 on your video you would see where BOD is when the ball is released.  He IS nowhere near the middle of the ruck as you suggest. Nowhere near it.  He hasn't just arrived there either.  You know how we know?  Because he is stationary when the ball is delivered.  At 3.42 and 3.43 you can see quite clearly that BOD has JOC completely covered.  Davies is too close, nowhere near the man running into his channel.  Its very poor positioning.  

There are so many things wrong with it that it is embarrassing to see you stand over it with such gusto.  JOC is completely covered by BOD, he isn't going to score.  Davies is far too close to BOD, out of position.  The camera angle that shows this clearly has been ignored by you.  And yet you have the audacity to say that someone's analysis, which is spot on, is bias because they are IriSH?  Utterly crass and trITE, and considering the 'evidence' you produce, washed down with a gallon full of irony.    

Theres a legal maxim, when the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side argue the facts.  When you don’t have the law on your side, when you don’t have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.  You have neither, and all you can do is stomp your little hands as loudly and petulantly as you can.  The evidence you have used is wrong, full of factual errors of the most basic kind.  Its laughable and makes an absolute mockery of you.  I retract a statement from earlier.  Even Bluesman would not be so arrogant and incoherent in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Old Hook is a sly old Devil.  Bletchley Park stuff this.

I think he is a good player and doubt he will let us down but Davies was at fault for the most crucial score of the series so far and has not performed as well as BOD whatever way you want to dress it.

To add to that to make a guy captain who has only ever experienced 1 test match in his career as captain over a guy with the experience of 80 test caps as captain seems a brave (odd) move. Again I hope I'm proven wrong. Genuinely.

Fly...you're alluding to me when you talk about the stats.  Just say me...I was one of them.... I can take it

What you're wrong about...yet again...over and over, is that the argument started by someone blaming Davies for the try.  The fun started when someone blamed BOD for being at fault for the try.  The same person never even mentioned Davies in his original post.

I said he was talking shyte.  He was.  Especially to the extent that he forgot to mention who missed the tackle.  Both you and he defended Davies (although you were both offended that I defended BOD - funny logic there )

Still following?  

So, yeah, I decided to end the debate that Davies had the better day and gave the stats that proved it wrong.  You then said I was selective.  

You're darn tootin I was selective, I was selecting the bits nobody wanted to hear because they prove who had the better game.

Accuse a player of being to 'blame' for a try and expect a call back from me if he's Irish and innocent.  I look out for my guys, and don't apologise for it.

So, go back one last time and find the original culprit - the guy who felt the need to blame someone for the try without mentioning the player who missed the tackle.

Go back...find it...don't shirk the homework, and get back to me.

This just beggars belief.................... I am now retiring to a cloud that is overlooking Hookisms world were the sun is always shining and the road is always straight and the birds are always singing and never poo.

I really cannae understand anything he has just said, and I have lived and breathed contract and civil law for the last 30 plus years.

AT 3.00 mins THATS 8 SECONDS BEFORE THE TRY BOD WAS AT THE BASE OF THE RUCK CAJOLING AN EXHAUSTED LYDIATE....... I am simply not going to converse to you any more on this subject on the grounds that even my laptop is threatening to go on strike.

EIGHT SECONDS LATER BOD DID NOT GET TO POC BEFORE HE PASSED THE BALL INSIDE 4 METRES.

Bleeding hell the evidence is damning, vertical, horizontal, inside, outside, thro the looking glass, through my Scottish tinted gogs, through your emerald glazed milk bottles doesn't matter how you look at it.

Hookism my wife would have a field day with you on her couch, she could win the nobel prize for research into the utterly deluded and I could sell my consultancy and live as a beach bum for the rest of my natural.

No more please, lets pretend this has never happened

flyhalffactory wrote:Hookism my wife would have a field day with you on her couch...............

ooooh. Party time for Hookism.........

 I've looked at it again and I've changed my mind - I now think Adam Ashley-Cooper is to blame for the try

The only explanation I can come up with for FHF's completely different opinion on this matter is that he is talking about a different game altogether.

One in which BOD misses a tackle on POC.

The second test that I watched POC watched from the stands with his arm in a sling.

SecretFly wrote:Fly...you're alluding to me when you talk about the stats.  Just say me...I was one of them.... I can take it

What you're wrong about...yet again...over and over, is that the argument started by someone blaming Davies for the try.  The fun started when someone blamed BOD for being at fault for the try.  The same person never even mentioned Davies in his original post.

I said he was talking shyte.  He was.  Especially to the extent that he forgot to mention who missed the tackle.  Both you and he defended Davies (although you were both offended that I defended BOD - funny logic there )

Still following?  

So, yeah, I decided to end the debate that Davies had the better day and gave the stats that proved it wrong.  You then said I was selective.  

You're darn tootin I was selective, I was selecting the bits nobody wanted to hear because they prove who had the better game.

Accuse a player of being to 'blame' for a try and expect a call back from me if he's Irish and innocent.  I look out for my guys, and don't apologise for it.

So, go back one last time and find the original culprit - the guy who felt the need to blame someone for the try without mentioning the player who missed the tackle.

Go back...find it...don't shirk the homework, and get back to me.

Fly it wasn't just you per se there was a few posy going around stating the stats, I replied to you as I think (derriere scrapping kissy kissy) that you are a decent articulate poster, and for you to quote the stats then I thought "hello I cannae remember that happening throughout the match, so I watched it again before I dropped a smelly one and stated utter gash.

I never look out for my guys, I live by the truth, the truth will prevail. If my guys are good enough then I Know I Can Prove It. As it happens Matt Scott has potential but in reality wasn't good enough to travel. Grant Gray in the test 23 are different matters.

Davies v BOD - the reality is we all know the facts some of us choose to pander to the lemmings...............

flyhalffactory wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Fly (am I talking to myself...... you are not 6 6 and played blindside for 20 yrs are you by any chance?)

The simple fact is did BOD nail his man before the pass went.............. NO.
Davies should never have risked not covering POC, he was on a loser either way, he should never have been put in that situation. It was a defensive nightmare

NO MORE NO MORE.............. I am walking away from this argument

You're walking away because you are talking absolute............ guess the rest.  Davies shouldn't have been placed in the situation of what?  Playing in a full on International?  And thinking on his feet quickly and following a player with his eye and nailing him?  Do I blame him?  No.  he missed.  It happens.  He was the one in the wrong.  Not BOD.  Tell a different story a million times and you'll still be wrong.

And when people point it out, you slide back into the less meaty, well, Davies couldn't help it.  Not the point, you keep insinuating that BOD was responsible.  He wasn't.  Games happen in front of you not on a blackboard.  He didn't trust BOD to do his job even though BOD was indictating to him to do just that.

I am insinuating the exact opposite Neither BOD or Davies was singularly to blame. This whole sorry affair started way back when one or two posters wacked some espn (b0ll0cks data classification) to justify BODs vastly superior performance and the blamed the try on Davies. Both are gash and the video evidence of the match in general and the build up to the try is conclusive. I have had loads of private messages of all nationalities who don't want to get embroiled in the dispute (unlike the daft beggar that I am) saying they followed the link and pause at those precise moments and its kinda a sledgehammer to the chops.

You Fly my good mate are very much blind with both eyes taken out, and sold in never never land for a bag of magic beans. Unfortunately you cannae grow another O'Driscoll so cut the mother off your shoulder and let it go. Saying that if us Scots had BOD in our midfield for the last 15 years I would be the same as you eyes shut and fingers in my ears BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH CAN'T HEAR YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH CAN'T HEAR YOU.

1. It was Davies... Really
2. Conclusive in vindicating BOD
3. What did the Chinese lad have to say?
4. They obviously don't want to put their opinions up for ridicule

As you seem to have ignored my response to points you made earlier I can only assume that you didn't understand the response I made about drift defence, side on tackling etc which makes sense.

By the by I think the Scots have been treated apallingly in the test series. I can understand Hoggs exlusion but having Croft ahead of Grey on the bench last week was just insulting. As for Ryan Grant last week. I can only surmise that he must have been injured... while sitting on the bench and got a splinter in his arse.

MrsP wrote:The only explanation I can come up with for FHF's completely different opinion on this matter is that he is talking about a different game altogether.

One in which BOD misses a tackle on POC.

The second test that I watched POC watched from the stands with his arm in a sling.

You're so wise.  

SecretFly wrote:Fly...you're alluding to me when you talk about the stats.  Just say me...I was one of them.... I can take it

What you're wrong about...yet again...over and over, is that the argument started by someone blaming Davies for the try.  The fun started when someone blamed BOD for being at fault for the try.  The same person never even mentioned Davies in his original post.

I said he was talking shyte.  He was.  Especially to the extent that he forgot to mention who missed the tackle.  Both you and he defended Davies (although you were both offended that I defended BOD - funny logic there )

Still following?  

So, yeah, I decided to end the debate that Davies had the better day and gave the stats that proved it wrong.  You then said I was selective.  

You're darn tootin I was selective, I was selecting the bits nobody wanted to hear because they prove who had the better game.

Accuse a player of being to 'blame' for a try and expect a call back from me if he's Irish and innocent.  I look out for my guys, and don't apologise for it.

So, go back one last time and find the original culprit - the guy who felt the need to blame someone for the try without mentioning the player who missed the tackle.

Go back...find it...don't shirk the homework, and get back to me.

Fly it wasn't just you per se there was a few posy going around stating the stats, I replied to you as I think (derriere scrapping kissy kissy) that you are a decent articulate poster, and for you to quote the stats then I thought "hello I cannae remember that happening throughout the match, so I watched it again before I dropped a smelly one and stated utter gash.

I never look out for my guys, I live by the truth, the truth will prevail. If my guys are good enough then I Know I Can Prove It. As it happens Matt Scott has potential but in reality wasn't good enough to travel. Grant Gray in the test 23 are different matters.

Davies v BOD - the reality is we all know the facts some of us choose to pander to the lemmings...............

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I think it is clear that Gatland never had an intention of playing BOD in the tests to begin with.  If Roberts had been fit then BOD wouldn't have started the first two tests.  Gatland hasn't bought into the Lions process, into the ethos and history which is absolutely astonishing given his role in the previous serious.  He has seen this as a Wales (plus) tour built on Welsh tactics which have consistently failed, operated by a side that was picked before they left these shores.  The only 'form' players who have been included in the side based on performances are Young at hooker, and ermmmmmmmm, thats it. Thats not to say that some of the rest weren't picked on merit.  Adam Jones, POC, Sexton, Davies, North, and Halfpenny all played well in warm up games.  Questions about the merit of picking AWJ, Heaslip, Bowe, Lydiate and Warburton have to be asked.  The selections of Williams and Court for warmup matches beggar belief.  This is Woodward part two.  When legendary Lions like WBMcB come out and say they are worried about the ethos of the side and the future of the Lions then you have to sit up and take note.  

Yup.

I'd go a step further and say Gats is using this tour to develop his players for the RWC. By blooding as many of his guys in the test series he's getting them valuable experience of beating a SH side, something they've psychologically struggled with.

Warbs and AWJ will go home as test captains, all his backrow are test lions and Davles will be walking on air after being selected ahead of a legend like BOD for the decider.

He's a cute hoor is Gats...

I'm pretty sure his sole objective is to win the Test series, Rodders. He's a Kiwi, for crying out loud.

If your conspiracy theory was true, why wait until the third Test? Why run the risk of having the series won (as it almost was) before bringing in his favoured sons?

flyhalffactory wrote:This just beggars belief.................... I am now retiring to a cloud that is overlooking Hookisms world were the sun is always shining and the road is always straight and the birds are always singing and never poo.

I really cannae understand anything he has just said, and I have lived and breathed contract and civil law for the last 30 plus years.

AT 3.00 mins THATS 8 SECONDS BEFORE THE TRY BOD WAS AT THE BASE OF THE RUCK CAJOLING AN EXHAUSTED LYDIATE....... I am simply not going to converse to you any more on this subject on the grounds that even my laptop is threatening to go on strike.

EIGHT SECONDS LATER BOD DID NOT GET TO POC BEFORE HE PASSED THE BALL INSIDE 4 METRES.

Bleeding hell the evidence is damning, vertical, horizontal, inside, outside, thro the looking glass, through my Scottish tinted gogs, through your emerald glazed milk bottles doesn't matter how you look at it.

Hookism my wife would have a field day with you on her couch, she could win the nobel prize for research into the utterly deluded and I could sell my consultancy and live as a beach bum for the rest of my natural.

No more please, lets pretend this has never happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VttNqKXu84o&feature=player_detailpage#t=73s

That's completely wrong,on this video the try is scored at 1.20 yet at 1.12 that's 8 seconds before the try is scored you can clearly see BoD 5 yards to the right of the ruck looking to his right communicating with Davies.

 Do you think Warburton should have gone to the TMO to see who's fault it was ??

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm pretty sure his sole objective is to win the Test series, Rodders. He's a Kiwi, for crying out loud.

If your conspiracy theory was true, why wait until the third Test? Why run the risk of having the series won (as it almost was) before bringing in his favoured sons?

Obviously he wants to win the series, but if he can win it with Welsh men at the helm then that will be much better from him and Howley.

Ian Evans is the only Welshman not to feature in the tests, what does that say?

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm pretty sure his sole objective is to win the Test series, Rodders. He's a Kiwi, for crying out loud.

If your conspiracy theory was true, why wait until the third Test? Why run the risk of having the series won (as it almost was) before bringing in his favoured sons?

Obviously he wants to win the series, but if he can win it with Welsh men at the helm then that will be much better from him and Howley.

Ian Evans is the only Welshman not to feature in the tests, what does that say?

Was Tipuric included in one of the tests?

RubyGuby wrote: Do you think Warburton should have gone to the TMO to see who's fault it was ??

Good idea. Though I expect they did review the tape after the game.

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm pretty sure his sole objective is to win the Test series, Rodders. He's a Kiwi, for crying out loud.

If your conspiracy theory was true, why wait until the third Test? Why run the risk of having the series won (as it almost was) before bringing in his favoured sons?

Obviously he wants to win the series, but if he can win it with Welsh men at the helm then that will be much better from him and Howley.

Ian Evans is the only Welshman not to feature in the tests, what does that say?

Yes, it would be better for him. But that's not why he's selected them. There's no way he'd jeopardise the chance to win this Test series just to keep the Welsh players sweet. If you believe he would , then I really don't know what to say.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I have to apologise for being so outright hostile with this post but needs must.  Sorry Flyhalf, your analysis is absolute garbage.  Sorry to be so blunt.  It is utterly, utterly, utterly clueless.  I agree with you on manys an issue but you have Gatlanditis here, ie, you have decided on your course of opinion beforehand and damn the evidence.  Every line of your analysis contains an inaccuracy.  It is absolutely open and closed. And to say that someone with an Irish accent who at least has the foresight to use the correct angle is somehow 'biased' is completely laughable.  Accusing anyone of bias and then producing such shoddy, incorrect analysis which is not even close to what the video shows undermines the credibility of your argument.  To accuse anyone of bias and then use an inconclusive camera angle in preference over one that tells the complete story is quite frankly comical and leaves you with no credit.    

Let's forget you can't even get the name of the players right, unless POC has aged backwards, grown some hair, slimed down and turned into an Aussie.  You can't see Davies telling BOD 3 on 2, or anything for that matter.  We can't see his face.  There is a possible, though entirely inconclusive hand motion.  I'm not sure if his hand just went out of shot, but it appears he is marshalling those outside him, not inside.    When the ball is released BOD isn't near the ruck- he is in position.  He shouldn't run to the 13 channel because he is defending the 12, as he did for much of the match.    This face on face stuff doesn't make sense.  Drift defending close to line wouldn't require this.  Submarine has said it above so I won't repeat what he said.  Suffice to say your view is so unbelievably basic, over simplistic and begs questions about your level of knowledge about the game.  

The rear camera view tells the story, but your analysis of course doesn't even look at it.  You have utterly ignored this evidence, which is clear as day as to the relative position of players, in preference for an angled view which doesn't back up your theory.  If you even bothered to look from 3:41 on your video you would see where BOD is when the ball is released.  He is nowhere near the middle of the ruck as you suggest. Nowhere near it.  He hasn't just arrived there either.  You know how we know?  Because he is stationary when the ball is delivered.  At 3.42 and 3.43 you can see quite clearly that BOD has JOC completely covered.  Davies is too close, nowhere near the man running into his channel.  Its very poor positioning.  

There are so many things wrong with it that it is embarrassing to see you stand over it with such gusto.  JOC is completely covered by BOD, he isn't going to score.  Davies is far too close to BOD, out of position.  The camera angle that shows this clearly has been ignored by you.  And yet you have the audacity to say that someone's analysis, which is spot on, is bias because they are Irish?  Utterly crass and trite, and considering the 'evidence' you produce, washed down with a gallon full of irony.    

Theres a legal maxim, when the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side argue the facts.  When you don’t have the law on your side, when you don’t have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.  You have neither, and all you can do is stomp your little hands as loudly and petulantly as you can.  The evidence you have used is wrong, full of factual errors of the most basic kind.  Its laughable and makes an absolute mockery of you.  I retract a statement from earlier.  Even Bluesman would not be so arrogant and incoherent in the face of overwhelming evidence.

well done... you've just won the internet! 

MrsP wrote:The only explanation I can come up with for FHF's completely different opinion on this matter is that he is talking about a different game altogether.

One in which BOD misses a tackle on POC.

The second test that I watched POC watched from the stands with his arm in a sling.

Paul O'Connell can't be tackled he just decides to go down easy so everyone else can have a rest.

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm pretty sure his sole objective is to win the Test series, Rodders. He's a Kiwi, for crying out loud.

If your conspiracy theory was true, why wait until the third Test? Why run the risk of having the series won (as it almost was) before bringing in his favoured sons?

Obviously he wants to win the series, but if he can win it with Welsh men at the helm then that will be much better from him and Howley.

Ian Evans is the only Welshman not to feature in the tests, what does that say?

Was Tipuric included in one of the tests?

Hes on the bench on Saturday Guns.

Nailed to it or free to stretch his legs if need be?

RubyGuby wrote: I've looked at it again and I've changed my mind - I now think Adam Ashley-Cooper is to blame for the try

Zactly! AAC should get the credit for drifting wide while JD was ball watching - it was entirely his fault.

Cooper deserves credit for taking it extremely well (as does Genia for superb vision in the build up) but you can't say Davies is blameless either.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm pretty sure his sole objective is to win the Test series, Rodders. He's a Kiwi, for crying out loud.

If your conspiracy theory was true, why wait until the third Test? Why run the risk of having the series won (as it almost was) before bringing in his favoured sons?

Obviously he wants to win the series, but if he can win it with Welsh men at the helm then that will be much better from him and Howley.

Ian Evans is the only Welshman not to feature in the tests, what does that say?

Yes, it would be better for him. But that's not why he's selected them. There's no way he'd jeopardise the chance to win this Test series just to keep the Welsh players sweet. If you believe he would , then I really don't know what to say.

I don't believe he'd jeapordise the test but I don't for one second believe that he genuinely thinks we've a better chance of winning with Davies at 13 and Faletau at 8, only that the result will likely be determined elsewhere and that its better for him should the Lions win with a larger contingent of Welshman on the field.

Faletau v Heaslip is a marginal one and given Faletaus consistant form I'm happy for him to get a run but I still don't accept that Davies brings more at 13 than BOD or that he has played well enough to justify his selection over a 4 times Lions tourist and modern legend in what should have been his final appearance.

Gatland's an ego maniac and I think he couldn't stomach the idea of O'Driscoll stealing his, or Warburtons, thunder.

SecretFly wrote:Nailed to it or free to stretch his legs if need be?

Free to come on for O'Brien at any point Gats feels there's too many Irishmen on the pitch....

rodders wrote:I still don't accept that Davies brings more at 13 than BOD or that he has played well enough to justify his selection over a 4 times Lions tourist and modern legend in what should have been his final appearance.

See, Davies can't possibly compete with that. But it shouldn't count against him that this is his first tour. Also, the O'Driscoll of 2001 would walk (or waltz) into the Test side, but as I've said before, that O'Driscoll isn't touring.

He certainly ain't touring now  He's packing his bags.  Wot's in there then, BOD?

Beale's proper studs??????????????  You divil you!  Took them for the team too?  If only Gatland knew...................... Nah, I think you'd still need to have done more BOD, to be honest.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

rodders wrote:I still don't accept that Davies brings more at 13 than BOD or that he has played well enough to justify his selection over a 4 times Lions tourist and modern legend in what should have been his final appearance.

See, Davies can't possibly compete with that. But it shouldn't count against him that this is his first tour. Also, the O'Driscoll of 2001 would walk (or waltz) into the Test side, but as I've said before, that O'Driscoll isn't touring.

Yes but thats what he is competing with and he hasn't in most people's views done enough. Roberts hasn't done anything of note but the other centres have all had their moments, including O'Driscoll.

Given that we are 1-1, O'Driscoll has barely put a foot wrong, we are shy of leaders and it is O'Driscoll's final chance to wear the jersey Gatland's decision to drop him for a player who hasn't actually played well in the tests seems motivated by spite and self interest rather than for rugby reasons.

That it's O'Driscoll's last chance to wear the jersey shouldn't be a factor whatsoever. Really. Test caps have to be earnt and over the tour as a whole he hasn't done enough. ( I hear you, Fly, before you post again that the pre-Test matches don't count.)

When your argument for O'Driscoll's inclusion is reduced to 1) number of previous tours, and 2) that he's been marginally better than Davies in the Tests - when neither of them has been great - then you don't have much of an argument. I'll say again: if he was playing that well, he wouldn't have been dropped.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:That it's O'Driscoll's last chance to wear the jersey shouldn't be a factor whatsoever. Really. Test caps have to be earnt and over the tour as a whole he hasn't done enough. ( I hear you, Fly, before you post again that the pre-Test matches don't count.)

When your argument for O'Driscoll's inclusion is reduced to 1) number of previous tours, and 2) that he's been marginally better than Davies in the Tests - when neither of them has been great - then you don't have much of an argument. I'll say again: if he was playing that well, he wouldn't have been dropped.

No you aren't listening to what I'm saying.

1 Form wise on this tour it is marginal. Davies maybe edges it on the warm ups (just), BOD was better in the tests and showed more form coming into the tour.

2 O'Driscoll has a wealth of experience and is proven top class player and Lions test player. Davies isn't.

3 All things considered given that BOD was the encumbent in the 13 jersey, the onus is on Davies to do enough to oust him and in most peoples oppinion hasn't done.

The sentiment aspect only comes in after you look at the justification for dropping O'Driscoll on his final test, and when you add it up that justification just isn't there. BOD hasn't played badly and Davies hasn't played well, Davies won't enhance the chances of winning the series beyond what O'Driscoll will.

Can't keep away from serious, Luckless, can you?

The Lions haven't been playing well enough to even win never mind individuals playing well enough not to be dropped  
Who cares about not having the quality to play in a team that's losing?  But for Beale and those studs Gatland warned him about (after the event, which was mean of Gatland ) they would have taken that game too....you know it, I know it, the world knows it

This is high quality rugby these guys have been playing!  Poor BOD couldn't handle the quality of it all.  Gatland then says "we're cruising here, Drico.  We're eating these Aussies up for breakfast.  They don't know what's hit them... and you're superfluous to our needs"

And of course he is.  He won't be playing for Wales in a WC.

There you go again Rodders: 'dropping O'Driscoll on his final test'. That's neither here nor there! Davies was better in the warm-ups (marginally you say), O'Driscoll was better in the Tests (marginally I say). With that little between them, the only reason there's an uproar is because of what O'Driscoll was. You don't select on the basis of reputation or past achievements. If you did, there'd never be any new caps. Ever.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There you go again Rodders: 'dropping O'Driscoll on his final test'. That's neither here nor there! Davies was better in the warm-ups (marginally you say), O'Driscoll was better in the Tests (marginally I say). With that little between them, the only reason there's an uproar is because of what O'Driscoll was. You don't select on the basis of reputation or past achievements. If you did, there'd never be any new caps. Ever.

Why would you say Roberts and Phillips have been selected ahead of Youngs and Tuilagi? Current form or reputation? Tommy Bowe?

A player shouldn't be picked on reputation alone but its nonsence to say you don't weigh a players past achievements and stature into selection decisions....sure half the squad was picked on reputation!

Davies has to prove he offers more, and hasn't.

That is the crux of it. BOD doesn't have to prove hes a test Lion, he's proven this numerous times, proven he can beat Australia, proven he can deliver big performances in big games.

Davies has shown nothing in two test bar a lack of defence or spatial awareness. One good game against the Waratahs B side does not make someone a test Lion.

We're not going to agree on this, are we?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There you go again Rodders: 'dropping O'Driscoll on his final test'. That's neither here nor there! Davies was better in the warm-ups (marginally you say), O'Driscoll was better in the Tests (marginally I say). With that little between them, the only reason there's an uproar is because of what O'Driscoll was. You don't select on the basis of reputation or past achievements. If you did, there'd never be any new caps. Ever.

BOD shouldn't have been dropped because:
1. He was the best performing Test centre on show
2. With the team stripped of leadership he became even more crucial
3. A settled team stands the best chance of success. Dropping BOD forced two changes rather than just one.
4. He has experience of winning against Australia
5. The Australians rate him, and would prefer him not to be in the team - do what your opponent least likes.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:We're not going to agree on this, are we?

 
No because we have different starting points.
 
Mine is that Davies hasn't done enough to earn the 13 jersey, yours is that O'Driscoll hasn't done enough to keep it.
 
Probably both are true but the conclusion for me in such a scenario is that O'Driscoll deserves to be retained on past performances more than Davies deserves to be selected on anything he's showed on tour.
 
If Tuilagi had of got the nod, I could have understood that, but Davies has played two tests not delivered and has never shown that he brings more as an outside centre than O'Driscoll at any level.
 
Where we do agree:
 

• BOD is not the player he was in 09 or 01
  

• Neither have had a great series so far
  

• Both showed good form in the warm ups
  

• We want the Lions to win
  

 Do any of you fellas ever think that both of your arguments have merits, which of course they do. Gatland IMO has gone for a less popular and maybe a riskier option but even his choice has a reasonable rationale. It wouldn't have been mine on this occasion but we are not on here to agree with each other. It's really best to judge him after tomorrow and even then your positions might be the same - That's life

It is life, Ruby.  Pity Gatland didn't wrap it up to be a happier ending (potentially) for all.  

He had a real chance to have a genuine once in a lifetime party, where many different milestones would have been acheived across the Nations. We all have our important symbols and the Lions is meant to belong to us all. Perhaps because he still doesn't have the necessary sensitivity to NH sensibilities and sporting passions, he blew that chance.
It might be a win but someone will have tainted it.  Not Welsh fans or players, not English fans or players, not Irish or Scottish fans or players.  
Him - the pragmatic Kiwi who doesn't give a four X about sentiment and emotion and the spirit of the four Nations.  He actually thinks we'll be all happy with a win.  How shallow a thought from a competitive sportsman.  

He mentions going back home to the UK...as if that's the complete journey - as if the fans are all British behind it all.  'They'll get over the controversy, it's a win for them.'  He's learned little in his time in the Northern Hemisphere. 

If he doesn't understand how emotion is the very essence of sport, and surmounts results, then he should have stayed away from Lions, because the emotions of the Lions are some of the most complex in world sport.

I think thats the Mills and Boon version Fly is it?