Gatland blasts critics...good on ya Gats

First topic message reminder :

http://www.allblacks.com/news/22679/Gatland-blasts-critics

Back home for you Gats, if they can't respect ya, we've plenty of teams that will.

.

Lord I don't want him hung, drawn and quartered. I'm delighted with the win and the matter is closed for me.

However that doesn't mean I feel that I am wrong to have critcised Gatland or that he is vindicated, at least not totally.

Gatlandball won the day and credit where its due, but ultimately that was much more to do with Corbiesero, Roberts and Halfpenny than with BOD's ommission.

The calls that Gatland made that were deemed controversial remain so, despite the series victory, but what the series win does is make them much less significant.

rodders wrote:Lord I don't want him hung, drawn and quartered. I'm delighted with the win and the matter is closed for me.

However that doesn't mean I feel that I am wrong to have critcised Gatland or that he is vindicated, at least not totally.

Gatlandball won the day and credit where its due, but ultimately that was much more to do with Corbiesero, Roberts and Halfpenny than with BOD's ommission.

The calls that Gatland made that were deemed controversial remain so, despite the series victory, but what the series win does is make them much less significant.

That Lions team for me was very much like Ireland under Kidney,play dross week after week and then one big performance comes out of nowhere.The coaches supporters then use the one good performance to gloss over all the mistakes that were made and totally ignore everything that was wrong.We won't ever know as this Lions team won't ever have to back up a performance the way Ireland had to but that's the worst thing I can say about the Lions this year.They reminded me of watching Ireland under Kidney.

Well, I think we can all agree, that Gatland has proved a lot of people, both on here and in the mainstream media wrong, I have learned a lot about a certain quarter of posters on here during the last few days, we all have to admit that winning a Lions series for the first time in sixteen years is a reason to celebrate, lets not get dragged down with the constant Gatland bashing and revel in what was a glorious weekend for British and Irish sport.

LordDowlais wrote:Well, I think we can all agree, that Gatland has proved a lot of people, both on here and in the mainstream media wrong, I have learned a lot about a certain quarter of posters on here during the last few days, we all have to admit that winning a Lions series for the first time in sixteen years is a reason to celebrate, lets not get dragged down with the constant Gatland bashing and revel in what was a glorious weekend for British and Irish sport.

Fair play, totally agree with the bolded. Magnificent weekend with the Lions, Murray and also GMac.

If David Price hadn't been pasted in the boxing the English could have got in on the act but hey ho.....

rodders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:With Gatlands selection he proved anyone who had doubts completely wrong. The sheer numbers that criticised his selection were made fools of with that complete and utter victory.

Say what you want about this or that would have happened had they been selected. That aint the point. That aint how it works. He made the tough calls, he put the players on the field and simply made fools of a lot ( a LOT) of people.

Simple as that.

Backtrack to save your own dignity in trying to justify your comments, but in the end Gats had the last word, on the field as it should be.

 
He didn't prove anything.
 
If he'd have picked Ryan Grant, Sean O'Brien, Manu Tuilagi and put a lock on the bench for the second test we'd have won 3- nil.
 
If O'Driscoll had started the final test, he could have went out as a winning captain, Davies could have come off the bench and the world would be a better place.
 
That was a very poor Australian side. To beat them in that manner is impressive and historically any Lions win is of huge significant but lets get real here, this wasn't the 1974 invincibles here or even the 97 team. The performances in 09 against a fantastic springbok side were much more impressive than this.
 
A win is a win and credit to all involved but Gatland has done nothing to enhance his reputation here. He's a decent but limited coach, who with the right players to implement his style can produce teams very difficult to beat. Thats not to be dismissed but he'd no tactical genius and his man management is appalling at times.
 
He's a lucky man to be blessed with such good players at Wales, and an understudy like Edwards who is the real brains behind things imo.

See thats my point Rodders, conjecture means nothing. 'we'd have won 3-0' means nothing. You don't KNOW that do you? If ODriscoll...another one.

Odriscoll had two shots at it...and was average. Is that Gatlands fault? No. In the only non Odriscoll match, they flew home. For me something was going wrong so Gatland took a radical approach.

And it came off spectacularly.

Did you expect that based on his selections? No. So how can you say if, if, if when its Gatlands changes that made the differenc- actually, not theoretically.

Sorry, dont do conjecture. I saw what I saw, and from where I sit, Gatlands changes made the difference, despite 'popular' opinion.

Taylorman wrote:

See thats my point Rodders, conjecture means nothing. 'we'd have won 3-0' means nothing. You don't KNOW that do you? If ODriscoll...another one.

Odriscoll had two shots at it...and was average. Is that Gatlands fault? No. In the only non Odriscoll match, they flew home. For me something was going wrong so Gatland took a radical approach.

And it came off spectacularly.

Did you expect that based on his selections? No. So how can you say if, if, if when its Gatlands changes that made the differenc- actually, not theoretically.

Sorry, dont do conjecture. I saw what I saw, and from where I sit, Gatlands changes made the difference, despite 'popular' opinion.

I assume that this equally means that Gatland deserves huge criticism for the inept bumbling displays that were shown in Test 1 and 2.After all if his changes made the difference in the 3rd Test then equally his selections must have been wrong twice before that.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

See thats my point Rodders, conjecture means nothing. 'we'd have won 3-0' means nothing. You don't KNOW that do you? If ODriscoll...another one.

Odriscoll had two shots at it...and was average. Is that Gatlands fault? No. In the only non Odriscoll match, they flew home. For me something was going wrong so Gatland took a radical approach.

And it came off spectacularly.

Did you expect that based on his selections? No. So how can you say if, if, if when its Gatlands changes that made the differenc- actually, not theoretically.

Sorry, dont do conjecture. I saw what I saw, and from where I sit, Gatlands changes made the difference, despite 'popular' opinion.

I assume that this equally means that Gatland deserves huge criticism for the inept bumbling displays that were shown in Test 1 and 2.After all if his changes made the difference in the 3rd Test then equally his selections must have been wrong twice before that.

Yes you are probably right, criticism for the first two tests are indeed granted, but the criticism before the third test was out of order. By this reasoning though are you saying that O'Driscoll should have perhaps been dropped for all the tests ?

Either that or he kept trying to find players who would perform. For 3 tests he changed players till the right combinations worked. If anyone was bumbling and inept...surely...its the players themselves...or do you believe gameplans win matches by themselves?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

See thats my point Rodders, conjecture means nothing. 'we'd have won 3-0' means nothing. You don't KNOW that do you? If ODriscoll...another one.

Odriscoll had two shots at it...and was average. Is that Gatlands fault? No. In the only non Odriscoll match, they flew home. For me something was going wrong so Gatland took a radical approach.

And it came off spectacularly.

Did you expect that based on his selections? No. So how can you say if, if, if when its Gatlands changes that made the differenc- actually, not theoretically.

Sorry, dont do conjecture. I saw what I saw, and from where I sit, Gatlands changes made the difference, despite 'popular' opinion.

I assume that this equally means that Gatland deserves huge criticism for the inept bumbling displays that were shown in Test 1 and 2.After all if his changes made the difference in the 3rd Test then equally his selections must have been wrong twice before that.

It's the first two games people are criticising him for.  Mostly because many believe he had the players at his disposal to play game 3 three times - and didn't.

The loss of the 2nd Test clearly called for changes at half-back and centre as our match winning wings saw no ball all game. O'Driscoll's performance showed that he was no longer the great player he once was. Gatland surveyed the talent at his disposal and made changes bringing in Roberts to the centre allowing Davies to move back to his preferred position, changing the scrum-half and introducing Falatau to strengthen the defensive structure following the loss of O'Driscoll's undoubted tackling skills. It mattered not whether they were British or Irish, they were all Lions and Gatland was the Lions Coach desperate for a Lions win. He did a great job.

stourjim wrote:The loss of the 2nd Test clearly called for changes at half-back and centre as our match winning wings saw no ball all game. O'Driscoll's performance showed that he was no longer the great player he once was. Gatland  surveyed the talent at his disposal and made changes bringing in Roberts to the centre allowing Davies to move back to his preferred position, changing the scrum-half and introducing Falatau to strengthen the defensive structure following the loss of O'Driscoll's undoubted tackling skills. It mattered not whether they were British or Irish, they were all Lions and Gatland was the Lions Coach desperate for a Lions win. He did a great job.

At last...some sense:thumbsup: 

With the resounding victory theres just no room for but, but, but, if, if, if.

stourjim wrote:The loss of the 2nd Test clearly called for changes at half-back and centre as our match winning wings saw no ball all game. O'Driscoll's performance showed that he was no longer the great player he once was. Gatland  surveyed the talent at his disposal and made changes bringing in Roberts to the centre allowing Davies to move back to his preferred position, changing the scrum-half and introducing Falatau to strengthen the defensive structure following the loss of O'Driscoll's undoubted tackling skills. It mattered not whether they were British or Irish, they were all Lions and Gatland was the Lions Coach desperate for a Lions win. He did a great job.

+1:clap: 

Tons of room for but, but, but, if, if , if.    You're new to rugby, are you, Taylorman?  The but, but, buts and if, if, ifs were all the rage a few years back when New Zealand were having trouble proving their total dominance everytime a world cup came up.

Everything was always wrong except bad player performances, bad tactics, bad coaching.  No, that's impossible for a New Zealand side to suffer such things, so food, and refs and luck, and whatever else that could be thrown at the problem, was always dragged into the argument to prove a spade sometimes isn't a spade.

Now, let's not lose the run of ourselves and become lecturers in the principles of winning now.  It's too late for that act.  We've all witnessed most of you in action when the results weren't the right ones.....  we remember things.

stourjim wrote:The loss of the 2nd Test clearly called for changes at half-back and centre as our match winning wings saw no ball all game. O'Driscoll's performance showed that he was no longer the great player he once was. Gatland  surveyed the talent at his disposal and made changes bringing in Roberts to the centre allowing Davies to move back to his preferred position, changing the scrum-half and introducing Falatau to strengthen the defensive structure following the loss of O'Driscoll's undoubted tackling skills. It mattered not whether they were British or Irish, they were all Lions and Gatland was the Lions Coach desperate for a Lions win. He did a great job.

Roberts was injured for the first two tests, so how do you know he wouldn't have made the difference with O'Driscoll. I don't recall doing much in the game until Murray came on as scrumhalf - then the centres were brought into the game. As well as that, how come Leigh Halfpenny decide to attack the odd time in the 2nd half of the 3rd Test?

Even Jonathan Sexton is joking that he enjoyed getting his first cap for Wales at the weekend  

LordDowlais wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

See thats my point Rodders, conjecture means nothing. 'we'd have won 3-0' means nothing. You don't KNOW that do you? If ODriscoll...another one.

Odriscoll had two shots at it...and was average. Is that Gatlands fault? No. In the only non Odriscoll match, they flew home. For me something was going wrong so Gatland took a radical approach.

And it came off spectacularly.

Did you expect that based on his selections? No. So how can you say if, if, if when its Gatlands changes that made the differenc- actually, not theoretically.

Sorry, dont do conjecture. I saw what I saw, and from where I sit, Gatlands changes made the difference, despite 'popular' opinion.

I assume that this equally means that Gatland deserves huge criticism for the inept bumbling displays that were shown in Test 1 and 2.After all if his changes made the difference in the 3rd Test then equally his selections must have been wrong twice before that.

Yes you are probably right, criticism for the first two tests are indeed granted, but the criticism before the third test was out of order. By this reasoning though are you saying that O'Driscoll should have perhaps been dropped for all the tests ?

Possibly,personally I didn't think BoD being dropped was that big a deal as the gameplan was so poor it didn't matter who was there,the centres had no chance.

Luckily the scrum came good and won the game,if Pollock hadn't allowed the Aussies to hit early in the 1st Test the Lions would have won that far more convincingly too.If Healy,Jenkins or Corbisiero were fit they'd have won the 2nd Test and in the 3rd Test Gatland didn't suddenly devise an expansive gameplan.He had the same boring stodgy tactics but the scrum functioned,the Aussies couldn't deal with that dominance and gaps started to appear in the last half an hour.

LordDowlais wrote:

stourjim wrote:The loss of the 2nd Test clearly called for changes at half-back and centre as our match winning wings saw no ball all game. O'Driscoll's performance showed that he was no longer the great player he once was. Gatland  surveyed the talent at his disposal and made changes bringing in Roberts to the centre allowing Davies to move back to his preferred position, changing the scrum-half and introducing Falatau to strengthen the defensive structure following the loss of O'Driscoll's undoubted tackling skills. It mattered not whether they were British or Irish, they were all Lions and Gatland was the Lions Coach desperate for a Lions win. He did a great job.

+1:clap: 

O'Driscoll was dropped for Davies. So Lord Dowlais and Stourjim can you both categorically say that Davies performed better in the first two tests than BOD to deserve selection? Its very conventient for O'Driscoll critics to say his performances merited him being dropped. Not so convenient when you consider than none of his competition performed better.

Are you overlooking Davies potentially series losing missed tackle on AAC in your justification of his selection over BOD?

Did Davies play particularly well in the third test, well enough to categorically confirm Gatland made the right call?

The bottom line is that even though all the BOD naysayers like to think he wasnt performing his performances were better than any other 13. Add that to his captaincy experience this is why his non selection was contentious. Its not rocket science.

SecretFly wrote:.....  we remember things.

Fly,
When I was younger some of my army assignments were as appended to intelligence gathering teams.  And in some fairly dangerous areas (though more dangerous than 606 when the 6 Nations rolls around?  Maybe, but maybe not.).  However I am intrigued by your statement.  Can you please let me know exactly what 'things' do you remember?  We are the only people authorised to remember 'things'.  We may need to meet in a dark alley somewhere with some of my 'friends' whose job it is to make people forget 'things'.

MrsP wrote:I have been critical of how Gatland has handled this tour from initial squad annoncement to test selection and tactics.

The fact that the team won yesterday changes none of the things that I was concerned about so I do not feel any need to apologise for raising any of my concerns.

And I can not for the life of me see why we should be eulogising over a coach who, but for a slippy bit of grass at Suncorps, very nearly lost the most winnable Lions series of recent times. And that is how close we came to losing. One slip.

Now, if all the "Real" rugby fans out there are happy to dub him Sir Warren then go right ahead but don't expect those of us with genuine concerns to apologise for expressing them

I'm sure your 'genuine concerns' will be duly noted by the Lions management! Haha, how pompous can you be? Who do you think you are?

ONE SLIP?? How much did you think they would win every game by? 100 points?

Tell you what, Beale is more thankful for that 'slip' than any Lions fan. Fact is, he's an occasional long range hit and hope kicker with ZERO pedigree, who's knocked over the odd kick in the past. That kick was NEVER going over. He'd already missed from closer range. He made contact with the ball like a wet tea towel, and it was was missing a long time before he went to ground.

Did you have similar genuine concerns about other coaches who didn't win the series?

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:.....  we remember things.

Fly,
When I was younger some of my army assignments were as appended to intelligence gathering teams.  And in some fairly dangerous areas (though more dangerous than 606 when the 6 Nations rolls around?  Maybe, but maybe not.).  However I am intrigued by your statement.  Can you please let me know exactly what 'things' do you remember?  We are the only people authorised to remember 'things'.  We may need to meet in a dark alley somewhere with some of my 'friends' whose job it is to make people forget 'things'.

Too late Doc. I am a very smart man. I have electronic files of all the juicy stuff already spread around the world to personal contacts. And a special file is to be given to wikileaks if some dark alley friends ever get around to convincing me to 'forget things'

     "I dont see how winning the third test proves he made the right call re Davies given that he had a quiet enough game" -

Yeah that was some quiet creativity and defending out there.

You want quiet - try Jamie Heaslip in the first 2 tests, quiet as a baby

RubyGuby wrote:     "I dont see how winning the third test proves he made the right call re Davies given that he had a quiet enough game" -

Yeah that was some quiet creativity and defending out there.

You want quiet - try Jamie Heaslip in the first 2 tests, quiet as a baby

I think when you give up debating the point and make posts like that you've lost the argument.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:     "I dont see how winning the third test proves he made the right call re Davies given that he had a quiet enough game" -

Yeah that was some quiet creativity and defending out there.

You want quiet - try Jamie Heaslip in the first 2 tests, quiet as a baby

I think when you give up debating the point and make posts like that you've lost the argument.

What's the argument again - People banging on about Gatlands failures whilst they put a record score on Aus - What exactly is there to debate about that? They all got it wrong and Gatland got it right - where's the grey in 41-16  

Davies had a very good game, people still whining on aboutit is embarassing, just move on FFS - The victimisation is killing me. BOD was dropped and the team slaughtered the aussies, which part of that are people not getting. ???

RubyGuby wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:     "I dont see how winning the third test proves he made the right call re Davies given that he had a quiet enough game" -

Yeah that was some quiet creativity and defending out there.

You want quiet - try Jamie Heaslip in the first 2 tests, quiet as a baby

I think when you give up debating the point and make posts like that you've lost the argument.

What's the argument again - People banging on about Gatlands failures whilst they put a record score on Aus - What exactly is there to debate about that? They all got it wrong and Gatland got it right - where's the grey in 41-16  

Davies had a very good game, people still whining on aboutit is embarassing, just move on FFS - The victimisation is killing me. BOD was dropped and the team slaughtered the aussies, which part of that are people not getting. ???

I don't really know,I haven't been following your posts that closely (I could reread the thread I suppose) it's just that when you post attention seeking crap like that above you come off like a 7 year old who can't get his point across and justs shouts as loudly as he can to drown out the people he diagrees with.

If you disagree with someone debate the point,ignore them or agree to disagree but don't ruin the thread with childish posts full of emoticons.

 asore - Maybe you sense the frustration - I cannot stand the victimisation suffered by people because a player was dropped for a better combination that bore fruit and demolished the aussies. My rant above does actually have an explanation and reason in it - Why don't you criticise the fella suggesting Davies had a mediocre game when he set up trys, defended like a trojan and used his mercurial left foot to great effect. The reasoning behind all this is quite simple and maybe I should back off and give people time for their "wounds" to heal - indeed, that is what Ive done for the most part on here but now and again you've just got to respond

If only BOD's fans showed the dignity and restraint in dissapointment as he did then things would be a little easier, he even comments on the performance of Foxy Davies

RubyGuby wrote: asore - Maybe you sense the frustration - I cannot stand the victimisation suffered by people because a player was dropped for a better combination that bore fruit and demolished the aussies. My rant above does actually have an explanation and reason in it - Why don't you criticise the fella suggesting Davies had a mediocre game when he set up trys, defended like a trojan and used his mercurial left foot to great effect. The reasoning behind all this is quite simple and maybe I should back off and give people time for their "wounds" to heal - indeed, that is what Ive done for the most part on here but now and again you've just got to respond

If only BOD's fans showed the dignity and restraint in dissapointment as he did then things would be a little easier, he even comments on the performance of Foxy Davies

Fair enough it's just that type of post is a pet peeve of mine.I've seen it before and not said anything and just felt it needed to be brought up.This is a message board where people post their opinions and just cos you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid.I understand your frustration,I've felt it myself plenty of times in different debates and personally I use the ignore function when it gets like that.

I'll drop it now anyway as I'm only derailing the thread.

That type of post might be a pet peeve of yours but why don't you allow some people the freedom to express their views in the manner that they want - Some vitriol IMO warrants a derisory post on occasion - How people have the gumption to still hang on to the critcisms of such a young player who has performed well on tour in addition to a coach who has suffered such unwarranted criticism and won through is beyond me - hopefully in time they might want to reflect on that. I would urge some or perhaps all posters to look at the abuse levelled at welsh players and their coach on these posts prior to Saturday - When you've put up with that you might understand why some of us feel a little angry. At least Keith Wood had the kahunas to turn his opinion round immediately and apologise - Top man Keith. In some respects I wish POC had not been injured as he would have captained this team to victory and some of those wounds would just not have felt so deep.

Best Wishes

Sincerely Yours
Dr Ruby

SecretFly wrote:Tons of room for but, but, but, if, if , if.    You're new to rugby, are you, Taylorman?  The but, but, buts and if, if, ifs were all the rage a few years back when New Zealand were having trouble proving their total dominance everytime a world cup came up.

Everything was always wrong except bad player performances, bad tactics, bad coaching.  No, that's impossible for a New Zealand side to suffer such things, so food, and refs and luck, and whatever else that could be thrown at the problem, was always dragged into the argument to prove a spade sometimes isn't a spade.

Now, let's not lose the run of ourselves and become lecturers in the principles of winning now.  It's too late for that act.  We've all witnessed most of you in action when the results weren't the right ones.....  we remember things.

Why the fans were dumb, fly, was their timing. The Social media stood up and down the sidelines of the Lions training ground, in their thousands, venting their anger, disappointment prematurely. Once the selection was made, what did the fans expect to achieve by that. The series was tied and at a time the side needed the most support, the fans instead chose to insult them, point out their failings, cry all week about their favourite sons not being selected.

Pathetic, and when in history have you seen the AB's mid series where its all up for the taking, do that to their side and coach. Noooo, we are not as stupid as that. Self satisfaction ahead of the success of the team is what posters here were all about.

Its a team those who participated in dont deserve as fans, and one where you actually only support your nations contribution to it first, the overall side later.

Anyway, I'm over it. I don't look forward to the Lions coming here in 17, but thanklfully, there wont be any of this rubbish, victory a long lost option for them on these shores....and this Oz series illustrates exactly why. When things go awry, you all split into groups under the flag and look for someone to blame.

Sad as, and as usual, easy pickings....we remember a thing or two fly...though wins here are sure a distant memory, since you started down that road.

Enjoy the spoils, for 17 will be back to BAU.

A one-eyed Welshman lecturing on bias, joined by a New Zealander with tips of being a good winner and loser and the etiquette of moderate criticism?  Next week folks, Paddy O'Irishman travels to the subcontinent to tell a bunch of Indians to stop moaning about British Imperialism.

 Hookie

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Don't really get the whole point of this post Taylorman. Gats gets to give his critics a two finger salute? Really? Not JUST enjoy winning a Lions series. Why is everything boiled down to a 'You were wrong, apologise' 'You showed me no respect, boo hoo'

Since when did people have to apologise for having an opinion? Isn't a congratulations all that's required? Something I'm pretty certain most posters did, whether they backed his selections and tactics or not.

Feels like some Welsh and Kiwi posters have circled the wagons and decided criticism of Gatland is a personal slight. Bottom line is, unless it's Geech, whoever manages the Lions is going to come in for some pretty fierce criticism - win or lose.

 The again maybe  some Welsh and Kiwi posters circled the wagons as they decided criticism of Gatland was totally shortsighted, unwarranted,destructive and as time later  shows proven to be utterly incorrect.

I'm sorry explain how it was any of those things? Just to clarify I didn't say again, I absolutely did NOT want to imply that I thought Welsh or Kiwi posters make a habit of 'circling the wagons' nor that those who have on this occasion were the majority, hence 'some' posters. I can see that putting their nationalities may have been clunky, but it does seem to be the Welsh and Kiwis rushing to Gatland's aid. I understand this, Gats is one of theirs, but I think it's completely unnecessary. BOD fan boys criticised Gatland, Gatland fan boys criticised those guys. The latter would surely be better served keeping any smug satisfaction to themselves rather than calling for people to apologise for having an opinion and then, in the most case, admitting they'd been proven wrong. Or not. I guess that's entirely up to you.

 I take it that's not British and Irish Imperialism then - We don't want any bias to get in the way do we

I agree, fickle, all of it.
Just glad I'm not one to have to support the Lions. What a horrid thought. You can't win even if you do win.
If that third test had been lost, what would have happened to Gatland then? Scapegoat of the century, and a repeat of Henry...thats obvious. Only difference this time, is Henry's side faced a MUCH better Oz side- but from what I've seen, consensus is BOTH made bad selctions, both were trashed in that respect, only the winning outcome allowing Gatland to get away with further trashing....fickle.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:A one-eyed Welshman lecturing on bias, joined by a New Zealander with tips of being a good winner and loser and the etiquette of moderate criticism?  Next week folks, Paddy O'Irishman travels to the subcontinent to tell a bunch of Indians to stop moaning about British Imperialism.

Very funny, Hookisms, and yet very true  

I'm a kiwi and I don't particularly like Gatland and actually wanted to see him flop. I'm sure I think he was a good guy if I met him. But he must get some credit for holding the team together after the chaotic weak of angst from ex-players and the media rather than implode like lions teams in recent memory. But no, he's still a rubbish coach with no idea according to many.

 

ebop wrote:I'm a kiwi and I don't particularly like Gatland and actually wanted to see him flop. I'm sure I think he was a good guy if I met him. But he must get some credit for holding the team together after the chaotic weak of angst from ex-players and the media rather than implode like lions teams in recent memory. But no, he's still a rubbish coach with no idea according to many.

That seems to be the general consensus on here - A poor man manager, a poor tactician and an all round baddie - Thank God he's had luck on his side otherwise how else would he have taken Wales to a 2011 RWC semi-final a 2012 Grand Slam, 2013 6 Nations championship and a Lions series success after 16 barren years. This is one lucky fella. If only he could grasp the insight conveyed on these baords and from the professional pundits he might just do himself a favour and retire from rugby altogether and go back to cleaning windows - Why is he not listening eh



"I'm a kiwi and I don't particularly like Gatland and actually wanted to see him flop" - I really can't understand that thinking; do you have any Irish ancestry?

It's because I'm selfish ruby and would rather our kiwi coaches teach future ABs so that we are strong. NH don't know how lucky they are to be propped up, and this lions series win highlights that

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Tons of room for but, but, but, if, if , if.    You're new to rugby, are you, Taylorman?  The but, but, buts and if, if, ifs were all the rage a few years back when New Zealand were having trouble proving their total dominance everytime a world cup came up.

Everything was always wrong except bad player performances, bad tactics, bad coaching.  No, that's impossible for a New Zealand side to suffer such things, so food, and refs and luck, and whatever else that could be thrown at the problem, was always dragged into the argument to prove a spade sometimes isn't a spade.

Now, let's not lose the run of ourselves and become lecturers in the principles of winning now.  It's too late for that act.  We've all witnessed most of you in action when the results weren't the right ones.....  we remember things.

Why the fans were dumb, fly, was their timing. The Social media stood up and down the sidelines of the Lions training ground, in their thousands, venting their anger, disappointment prematurely. Once the selection was made, what did the fans expect to achieve by that. The series was tied and at a time the side needed the most support, the fans instead chose to insult them, point out their failings, cry all week about their favourite sons not being selected.

Pathetic, and when in history have you seen the AB's mid series where its all up for the taking, do that to their side and coach. Noooo, we are not as stupid as that. Self satisfaction ahead of the success of the team is what posters here were all about.

Its a team those who participated in dont deserve as fans, and one where you actually only support your nations contribution to it first, the overall side later.

Anyway, I'm over it. I don't look forward to the Lions coming here in 17, but thanklfully, there wont be any of this rubbish, victory a long lost option for them on these shores....and this Oz series illustrates exactly why. When things go awry, you all split into groups under the flag and look for someone to blame.

Sad as, and as usual, easy pickings....we remember a thing or two fly...though wins here are sure a distant memory, since you started down that road.

Enjoy the spoils, for 17 will be back to BAU.

Right, so just to be sure, you wanted people to keep their opinions under wraps until after the event...on a forum...where people share opinions. Baffling. I didn't say anything negative about Gatland beforehand, maybe I'll claim great foresight and pretend I knew loads of posters would say 'nah nah, told you so' if I was proven wrong. I actually found the Lions experience pretty uplifting, as I think most did, despite having reservations about Gatland's approach.

My opinion of Gatland is that he's a good but limited coach, with some excellent qualities who'll we'll have a far better idea about when he plays with a teams with more creative, smaller backs (if that happens). I thought his approach to the game COULD be enough to beat the Aussies, but probably wouldn't be given their previous ability to counter a similar approach from his Welsh team. I was obviously wrong, it worked, good on him, and I thought there were a couple of things that demonstrated some analysis of the opposition. I didn't voice any of these concerns beforehand, you'll no doubt be delighted to hear.

I also don't look forward to the Lions travelling there in 2017. We'll get battered AND patronised about the need for us to show unity and not voice any concerns over tactics and selections.

RubyGuby wrote: 

ebop wrote:I'm a kiwi and I don't particularly like Gatland and actually wanted to see him flop. I'm sure I think he was a good guy if I met him. But he must get some credit for holding the team together after the chaotic weak of angst from ex-players and the media rather than implode like lions teams in recent memory. But no, he's still a rubbish coach with no idea according to many.

That seems to be the general consensus on here - A poor man manager, a poor tactician and an all round baddie - Thank God he's had luck on his side otherwise how else would he have taken Wales to a 2011 RWC semi-final a 2012 Grand Slam, 2013 6 Nations championship and a Lions series success after 16 barren years. This is one lucky fella. If only he could grasp the insight conveyed on these baords and from the professional pundits he might just do himself a favour and retire from rugby altogether and go back to cleaning windows - Why is he not listening eh



"I'm a kiwi and I don't particularly like Gatland and actually wanted to see him flop" - I really can't understand that thinking; do you have any Irish ancestry?

I commend the Welsh posters who've supported Gatland, it's admirable loyalty. But you should know that many of those criticising Gatland also believe that Wales is a team full of cracking, world class players, who'd be even better with a more talented coach. As I say, I think he's very good but unadventurous.

Its just a matter of supply and demand- SA and NZ prop up the NH sides in both coaching and player resource.

France now have a gluttony of overseas players to the point its impacting their national side- some of the players that toured didnt even get good time on the field for their clubs due to the overseas players keeping them out.

Same with our coaches- its probably the language barrier that prevents too many coaches taking up French jobs but we've a surplus there as well and the UK are particularly taking them up.

What UK club rugby would be without that resourcing I don't know.

Not a Gatland fan myself but its never good seeing one of you're own spat on all week the way he was, particularly when:

- they hired him deciding they werent good enough to do the job themselves.
- ultimately, and despite the abuse during the week, they won convincingly.

And now we hear Gats should stop moaning and enjoy the moment...geez. I've seen better thank you's than that.

ebop wrote:It's because I'm selfish ruby and would rather our kiwi coaches teach future ABs so that we are strong. NH don't know how lucky they are to be propped up, and this lions series win highlights that

That's a good answer - We actually need SH coaches to succeed in Wales as we are too parochial and incestuous when it comes to selecting welsh coaches and players - I had a discussion with a kiwi the other day about everyone going on about how Gatland has to prove himself first. I wondered about that as Steve Hansen; whom I consider a lightweight with a very poor international record seems to have just been handed the top job without having too "prove himself" - Your countryman said it was probably about continuity after Henry - Now that's what I call a lucky coach.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:A one-eyed Welshman lecturing on bias, joined by a New Zealander with tips of being a good winner and loser and the etiquette of moderate criticism?  Next week folks, Paddy O'Irishman travels to the subcontinent to tell a bunch of Indians to stop moaning about British Imperialism.

Better to have one eye Hook than to be completely blind

 

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:.....  we remember things.

Fly,
When I was younger some of my army assignments were as appended to intelligence gathering teams.  And in some fairly dangerous areas (though more dangerous than 606 when the 6 Nations rolls around?  Maybe, but maybe not.).  However I am intrigued by your statement.  Can you please let me know exactly what 'things' do you remember?  We are the only people authorised to remember 'things'.  We may need to meet in a dark alley somewhere with some of my 'friends' whose job it is to make people forget 'things'.

Too late Doc.  I am a very smart man.  I have electronic files of all the juicy stuff already spread around the world to personal contacts.  And a special file is to be given to wikileaks if some dark alley friends ever get around to convincing me to 'forget things'

Ahhhhh, buggeration. I hate losing. Again.

RubyGuby wrote:

ebop wrote:It's because I'm selfish ruby and would rather our kiwi coaches teach future ABs so that we are strong. NH don't know how lucky they are to be propped up, and this lions series win highlights that

That's a good answer - We actually need SH coaches to succeed in Wales as we are too parochial and incestuous when it comes to selecting welsh coaches and players - I had a discussion with a kiwi the other day about everyone going on about how Gatland has to prove himself first. I wondered about that as Steve Hansen; whom I consider a lightweight with a very poor international record seems to have just been handed the top job without having too "prove himself" - Your countryman said it   was probably about continuity after Henry - Now that's what I call a lucky coach.

I'd agree with that. Hansens fortune is based on what he learnt from Henry and Smith over the 8 years (?) the three were in charge.

You might think its lightweight Ruby but how much value do you think there is in being one of 3 in one of the most successful coaching periods of all time, several tri nations wins, both a world cup win and loss, a 8 year unbeaten run in the UK until the England loss last year.

He wasnt in charge but in terms of being privy to what it takes for the job don't you think that is likley to give you the right skills.

Its not as though hes gone from Wales, done nothing for 9 years and straight onto AB coach.

If a Welsh coach had been in that AB loop for that period, would you then refer to him as 'lightweight' in terms of taking up the position in Wales?

 Taylorman your argument for Hansen has many merits and after being the co-driver for a number of years he now has the opportunity to take the wheel. I'm sure he has learned a lot in his time shadowing and I wish him well. However, I tend to judge a coach by their appraisal of games and their analysis etc and whilst I have always found Graham Henry to be profound; insightful and articulate in his post match analysis I have often wondered if Hansen is out of his depth. He seems overly defensive to me when the heat is on and does not give much away in his analysis (that just might be his way). I don't consider him to have stature and maturity required for such a role but he may well go on to prove me wrong.

How was his appointment met in NZ or was it just a given, I can see paralells with Rob Howley in Wales who I do not want to see anywhere near the top job

You're very fair minded ruby and I applaud you. I know what I've said may sound spiteful, but like Taylorman said, it is natural to defend our own regardless, especially when criticism 'appears' unjust.

Where have I been fair minded EBOP? Just interested

Well, it's the way you present your views and try to 'understand' other views that you may not necessarily agree with or comprehend. Rather than getting in a fluster you ask the question, read the response, and reply with respect. It's not easy to do in practice so that's why I applaud you.

ebop wrote:Well, it's the way you present your views and try to 'understand' other views that you may not necessarily agree with or comprehend. Rather than getting in a fluster you ask the question, read the response, and reply with respect. It's not easy to do in practice so that's why I applaud you.

That's very kind of you. I can get as emotional as anyone and have even been called one eyed and biased in this Thread. Time to write is sometimes a factor  

RubyGuby wrote:

ebop wrote:Well, it's the way you present your views and try to 'understand' other views that you may not necessarily agree with or comprehend. Rather than getting in a fluster you ask the question, read the response, and reply with respect. It's not easy to do in practice so that's why I applaud you.

That's very kind of you. I can get as emotional as anyone and have even been called one eyed and biased in this Thread. Time to write is sometimes a factor  

Yes, I know.

RubyGuby wrote: Taylorman your argument for Hansen has many merits and after being the co-driver for a number of years he now has the opportunity to take the wheel. I'm sure he has learned a lot in his time shadowing and I wish him well. However, I tend to judge a coach by their appraisal of games and their analysis etc and whilst I have always found Graham Henry to be profound; insightful and articulate in his post match analysis I have often wondered if Hansen is out of his depth. He seems overly defensive to me when the heat is on and does not give much away in his analysis (that just might be his way). I don't consider him to have stature and maturity required for such a role but he may well go on to prove me wrong.

How was his appointment met in NZ or was it just a given, I can see paralells with Rob Howley in Wales who I do not want to see anywhere near the top job  

I think thats sums up how most of us thought and at the time no one obvious stood out. For us it was better the devil you know. For me Hansen had media skills (or a lack thereof) that he's polished up considerably- all part of knowing where the buck now stops. In terms of coaching its hard to say but his record so far can hardly be criticised- a Rugby championship, French and Irish sweep of them all, with one loss at the end of last year. Whats more in that time we've blooded probably nearly 20 new All Blacks in one and a half seasons- all while maintaining the highest standards.

So although I agree, second season and hes hardly put a foot wrong. He's made big calls already and does and says the right things. So while hes getting those sort of results who can argue? We've been waiting to see him put under pressure with a loss or two and really the England loss isn't a lot to get fussed about- end of a long unbeaten season- we'd be clutching at straws if we thought that was a major concern.

For now, he'll do...