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.

.

Taylorman wrote:

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...

Can't fault Hansen, he just lacks any charisma and always comes across as a miserable bugger. I like Gatland for the same reason I liked Ted, although Ted beats anyone hands down with personality. There is a cheekiness and a sense of knowing they are boss without being too serious or arrogant about things. Both criticized far more than they should have been (Ted in 2007 and Warran ... all the time by some since he came to Wales!).

Taylorman wrote: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.

Only a handful of has been players from NZ and SA, and I hope we can get rid of them in Wales to be honest, we have better and do not need has been players from anywhere.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Taylorman wrote: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.

Only a handful of has been players from NZ and SA, and I hope we can get rid of them in Wales to be honest, we have better and do not need has been players from anywhere.

Not any more we don't thanks to the academies working well. But there was a time when they were necessary and welcome.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

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...

Can't fault Hansen, he just lacks any charisma and always comes across as a miserable bugger.  I like Gatland for the same reason I liked Ted, although Ted beats anyone hands down with personality.  There is a cheekiness and a sense of knowing they are boss without being too serious or arrogant about things.  Both criticized far more than they should have been (Ted in 2007 and Warran ... all the time by some since he came to Wales!).

Re their personalities have to agree with that. Gatlands fairly deadpan, as is Hansen. Worst Ive seen is Deans. Hardly says much..appears almost anaemic, pale. Obviously doesnt like fronting the media. Ted's early days he was the ultimate deadpan...hes wisened up and knows the power of coming across media wise.

These days unfortunately coaches have personalities whether they like it or not and someimes the public and fans hang off every word. Mastering that in both good and bad days reflects character..unfortunately, but there it is. You have to make the media work for your side.

I still think there can be a place in any side for class players regardless of where they are from, Barclay could be huge for the Scarlets for example next season and helped develop the youngsters.

BUT what hopefully seems to be stopping is the journey men we have had over past seasons, I see no point for them and would rather take the gamble on a young promising local kid.

bedfordwelsh wrote:BUT what hopefully seems to be stopping is the journey men we have had over past seasons, I see no point for them and would rather take the gamble on a young promising local kid.

Slightly tongue in cheek here, but I thought some of these overseas journeymen were capped this summer?

That's why said hopefully LT Kohn shouldn't have been anywhere near the side and trust Howley got slated for it and was waste of a cap and did de value the whole system

Taylorman wrote: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.

It's an interesting point, I think you're right that players and coaches in particular in the main have been hugely beneficial to the UK game - coaches in particular seem a lot more innovative to me. I'm extremely grateful that New Zealand keeps producing them, not least in the sense I think it's great for the game to have a few deep thinkers.

But your supply and demand argument surely works both ways. Your guys demand more money, we supply it. What New Zealand rugby would be without our cash I don't know, so I won't be bending the knee just yet, as much as I love the ABs and Kiwi rugby in general.

Hood83 wrote:

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.

Hoody I must apologise for a slight typo there, please read my post as:

Then again maybe some ...........etc...

But my point being, I happen to agree with what a lot of the Welsh posters on here have been writing right throughout this whole Lions campaign, and if your trying to dismiss my opinion on the flaky grounds that Im only siding with the Welsh because Gatland is a Kiwi then you need to think again, this test series was between Australia and Great Britain and Ireland (New Zealand were off to the east giving France a three zip beating). As a New Zealander I was completely neutral, New Zealand had stuff all to do with it apart from the two coaches being New Zealanders, a few players in both squads living for most of their formative years in New Zealand, A judicial Officer who also proven correct being a New Zealander, and James Horwill's lawyer being a New Zealander. Apart from that completely neutral. Bottom line is Gatland was proven correct and it irks the people who were shattered when he didnt select Brian O'Driscoll.

Laurie, dropping Brian O'Driscoll wasn't the reason that the Lions won (or even starting Roberts who played like a drain all tour) so I don't see why Gatland was proven correct. It was the return to fitness of Corbs combined with Roman Poitre as referee that made the difference (though the selection of Mike Phillips at scrumhalf who also played like a drain on the tour could have been the undoing of him).

Gatland has nothing to whinge about. As far as I can see, the reason he dropped Brian O'Driscoll was to ensure that the same thing that happened to Henry with Wales after the 2001 tour didn't happen to him (i.e., keeping the Welsh players happy - they have a habit of getting their coaches sacked - and the Welsh Rugby Union all at the expense of players from other countries who deserved to have equal opportunities).

If you think any Irish person will forget how poorly he treated BOD - not for dropping him, but for misleading him and the public by setting him up to be humilitated in a Press Conference within 24 hours of dropping him - that is just plain nasty. Wales are welcome to Gatland.

Sure the dropping of O'Driscoll may not have been the reason that the Lions won, but the ability of the backline to perform to a far higher standard and at pace without him contributed one hell of a lot.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Sure the dropping of O'Driscoll may not have been the reason that the Lions won, but the ability of the backline to perform to a far higher standard and at pace without him contributed one hell of a lot.

The backline would have got a lot more ball all series if Conor Murray was the starting scrumhalf (who could bring the centres into the game). Interesting that Murray has the top try assists (5) of all players on the tour. Phillips was a sentimental selection (and don't forget O'Driscoll had to play outside a 13, not a 12).

i thought Jonathan Davies played well and his kicking was excellent and not once did it coarse a try by the opposite team .

 The score line fully justifes the selections - that's about it really - Nice to see the subs having a few cameos after the hard work had been done

RubyGuby wrote: The score line fully justifes the selections - that's about it really - Nice to see the subs having a few cameos after the hard work had been done

So RubyGuby - do you think that Phillips earned the right to be selected on this tour?

The excuse given for dropping BOD was becuase of Roberts & Davies country partnership - but that was out the window of course for Sexton-Murray-Heislip. Gatland made sure the 3 of them didn't get a chance to put their case for selection. Then we have to swallow this tripe about a Roberts & Davies partnership.

Sin é wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Sure the dropping of O'Driscoll may not have been the reason that the Lions won, but the ability of the backline to perform to a far higher standard and at pace without him contributed one hell of a lot.

The backline would have got a lot more ball all series if Conor Murray was the starting scrumhalf (who could bring the centres into the game). Interesting that Murray has the top try assists (5) of all players on the tour. Phillips was a sentimental selection (and don't forget O'Driscoll had to play outside a 13, not a 12).

This is where it just gets too hard to discuss rugby,with people who can not get past just argueing selections. its about what the coachs do with the selected players and how those players in turn perform.

You think its all just about the end justifying the means?

They changed the rugby laws because of how Munster beat Toulouse in the Heineken Cup final in 2008 (and Toulouse won the Top 14 Final the following week using the same method to close out the game)!

Edit: you claim the backs were better with Davies there instead of BOD, I'm arguing the backs were better because they got some ball when Phillips went off for Conor Murray.

I still dislike Gatland series win or not, I have no time for all his mind games and cowpat.

 It's funny how everyone's eulogising about Murrays "magnificent" pass to put Roberts into the gap yet no one mentions a similar pass from Phillips to put Corbs through - Same old shoite I hear time and time again bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

Ruby - Phillips passed to a forward, Murray passed to a back (one of five try assists on tour). We are talking about bringing the backs into the game which apparently was BOD's fault that they weren't getting any ball.

 You must have missed Cuthberts try in the first test - absolute corker

so basically u saying some Welsh players are rubbish and gatland  as a coach should  have picked murray and bod . we won tho and we scored four tries  .so what's ur point    sin

RubyGuby wrote: You must have missed Cuthberts try in the first test - absolute corker

Wow, one try assist to a back! Well done Mikey.

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:so basically u saying some Welsh players are rubbish and gatland  as a coach should  have picked murray and bod . we won tho and we scored four tries  .so what's ur point    sin

I'm countering the claim by Laurie that the improvement of the back play justified the dropping of BOD for Davies.

The improvement of the backs contribution was down to Murray's being a much more rounded scrumhalf with a far better pass and boot than Phillips.

(PS, I'm a fan of Phillips, but his form has been very poor on this tour).

If you believe that all that matters is winning, why are you all defending poor Gats? Surely what we think of him is irrelevant in that case?

the best centre pairing of the 3 tests was in the 3rd. Hands down. No would have should haves.

' As far as I can see, the reason he dropped Brian O'Driscoll was to ensure that the same thing that happened to Henry with Wales after the 2001 tour didn't happen to him '

welll... No wonder our coaches are in demand...

Ok admit it guys.  You come on here in the morning, and there are some threads you just fear looking at, given how they've been already going for a few days.

You don't want to look and yet feel compelled to look.  I haven't looked yet. ......  hmmmm, should I, do you think?

Is it more of the "He should'a", "Wrong, he was right not to", Wrong, he didn't have the nerve to", Wrong, nerves is his middle name", "Wrong, he looked pretty nervy in the stands", "Wrong, you were looking at a different game", "Wrong, I was looking at a game that should have been played three times", "Wrong, we had weak players holding it back in those games", "Wrong, Phillips is weak", "Wrong, he is part of a successful unit." "Wrong, Sexton isn't part of his unit", "Wrong, Sexton is proud of his first Welsh cap", "Wrong he didn't look happy coming off", "Wrong, he was mad at BOD for sulking", "Wrong, only one who sulked after the game was Gatland, "Wrong, that's his happy face.........."

Scrumpy wrote:I still dislike Gatland series win or not, I have no time for all his mind games and cowpat.

Of which there has been none for ages. But don't let bygones be bygones, it's good to keep the blood pressure up.

RubyGuby wrote: The score line fully justifes the selections - that's about it really - Nice to see the subs having a few cameos after the hard work had been done

  Rather condescending there rubes. I thought we kicked on when the subs were made and Aus were within 3 points. Youngs and Murray made a huuuuge difference to the dynamism of the team. The selection of the whole squad justified by the score.

it is not the dropping of BOD for Davies...it is establishing the best and most effective pairing for the deciding test.

Gatland selected the most effective pairing in the 3rd test...how is that not obvious...remove BODs halo for a minute and answer the question. Which was the most effective pairing that played in the 3 tests?

Taylorman wrote:it is not the dropping of BOD for Davies...it is establishing the best and most effective pairing for the deciding test.

Gatland selected the most effective pairing in the 3rd test...how is that not obvious...remove BODs halo for a minute and answer the question. Which was the most effective pairing that played in the 3 tests?

Who created the template?

...why...is...it...so...hard...to...answer...the...question? which of the 3 tests had the best centres combination? not that hard is it...go on...have a go...just this once...

Higher_Ground wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I still dislike Gatland series win or not, I have no time for all his mind games and cowpat.

Of which there has been none for ages.  But don't let bygones be bygones, it's good to keep the blood pressure up.

Or it could be He's into doing his subtlE wums again. i wouldn't worry about it. he's gone from selling his lions top, to pRaiSing them and now to a pop at Gatland everytime He posts.

Hmmm... let me try for you. Is this a trick question or is it a which test had the biggest winning scoreline????

Let me see.... this is a tough one. I might need a half hour or so.... but I'll get back to you on it. Where's me calculator.....

Taylorman wrote:...why...is...it...so...hard...to...answer...the...question? which of the 3 tests had the best centres combination? not that hard is it...go on...have a go...just this once...

The one that had a 12 and a 13 instead of 2 13s?

I could be wrong but......

If you only bring 1 12 and he get's injured.....

Taylorman wrote:...why...is...it...so...hard...to...answer...the...question? which of the 3 tests had the best centres combination? not that hard is it...go on...have a go...just this once...

The one and only test that didn't have players playing out of position. Unfortunately we didn't get to see BOD & Roberts play together in a Test match.

Some of you answer questions like politicians

Sin é wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...why...is...it...so...hard...to...answer...the...question? which of the 3 tests had the best centres combination? not that hard is it...go on...have a go...just this once...

The one and only test that didn't have players playing out of position. Unfortunately we didn't get to see BOD & Roberts play together in a Test match.

Wrong answer Sin é!!!  Taylor wants you to say BOD is a shyte has-been, that Gatland is a New Zealander and is therefore infallible (aren't we ever so lucky we have another Kiwi now with Ireland, we won't be making any mistakes ever again...unlike the New Zealand lad that was with us the first time and made plenty)

I've come up with the results of the question BTW.  The best partnership was the last Test.  Roberts and Davies.  Now, what combination does Gatland base his 12, 13 partnership on?  Who created the blueprint.

wow imagine if gats lost oh sorry that's the other thread it all looks the same now

No my point was not about BOD being shyte, it was purely about weighing up the merits of having BOD and one of the two Welshmen again. Roberts was always coming back so as a pair Gatland took the risk that although individually BOD is probably the stronger of he and JD (in respect of this tour alone) that the combination of JD and Roberts might be stronger, if only for familiarity with eachother and Gats knowing how to play them.

And I'd say it was a tough decision to do that but in the end probably the right one. That is the sort of tough calls coaches need to make, and theyre not always right, but this time his hunch that they would make the most likely strongest combination...paid off. Perhaps JD didnt know his lines around BOD, and Gatland thought JR might be the same. At least thats a possible reason for his hesitancy in picking JR and BOD.

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:wow imagine if gats lost     oh sorry that's the other thread    it all looks the same now

Wouldn't have mattered - Gats made sure that his job was secure back in Wales by selecting all those Welsh players for the Tests.

You're right Sin. I remember Tipuric and Cuthbert starting as well.

Why does everything have to have an external factor Sin? First its selection because of Henry, next its selections cos of a position back at HQ? I mean really? how about finally selecting players who can win the series which as I recall...happened.

Cuthbert should have started. Another error

Taylorman wrote:
And I'd say it was a tough decision to do that but in the end probably the right one. That is the sort of tough calls coaches need to make, and theyre not always right, but this time his hunch that they would make the most likely combination...paid off.

BOD & Roberts are not a proven partnership (seem to remember Roberts getting player of the 2009 series). Its not like Gatland hasn't coached BOD in the past either.

Do you not think it was a particularly nasty thing to wheel BOD out for a press conference (within 24 hours of dropping him) to talk about how great the Lions are leading everyone to believe that not only was BOD starting the Test, but more than likely was going to captain the team?

Had Manu Tualagi even played with either of the Welsh centres prior to the 3rd Test to earn a bench spot if you are basing the selection on proven partnerships?

Breadvan wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: The score line fully justifes the selections - that's about it really - Nice to see the subs having a few cameos after the hard work had been done

  Rather condescending there rubes. I thought we kicked on when the subs were made and Aus were within 3 points. Youngs and Murray made a huuuuge difference to the dynamism of the team. The selection of the whole squad justified by the score.

Breadvan - in all honesty its just a response to the disparaging remarks to those players that set the foundation in place - People are so reluctant to accept that - Gatlands plan worked nigh on perfect and he got his replacements on at a good time on this occasion with the team on the front foot. It was a complete performance by all - I have no problem with that whatsoever - I just have a problem with people still whining on after such a complete performance, at least on the scoreboard  

So strictly as combinations its clear that BOD and JR are not proven, BOD and JD were terrible- even if JD were to blame and at some point JD and JR are fairly proven...that only leaves the one conclusion if JR was to play in this test- and he justified his selection- the best Lions centre performance of the 3 tests. Like I said, a tough call, but the right one.

Risca Rev wrote:You're right Sin. I remember Tipuric and Cuthbert starting as well.

I don't recall either of them being dragged into a press conference before they were dropped. 

Tipuric probably shouldn't have been on tour (because of his fitness) and Cuthbert was lucky to get a start in the first place (though at least he was on the bench for the 2nd Test).

 JD and Foxy have been a successful centre pairing for 3 years - This isn't rocket science - The actual decision for Gatland was simple, the execution (no pun intended) was less so of course. He's not there to win a popularity contest he's there to win a Test series.

[quote="Hood83"]

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

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.

 

This to me is one of the most depressing aspects of this whole discussion

I have been called anti-welsh from the first day of this tour for stating my opinion

Bizarrely the first opinion was that Matt Stevens should not be on tour, yet I had the anti welsh thrown in my face

Throw in that I do not think Phillips should have been in the test side, means I am now the biggest hater in the world (even though he was terrible in the first test and very poor in the third (And potentially injured)

I really do not think this was a very well managed tour, the Ozzie side was poor, with a poor 10 and a coach that was in disarray - this test series was their for the taking - 3 nil

Through poor tactics, bizarre selections and a poor game plan we should have lost the first 2 tests (They had a 7 playing in inside centre for goodness sake)

Yes, we played well in the last test (Second half) and won the series, and I am delighted, but that does not hide the fact we were poor coming up to the last test

THIS IS NOT ANTI WELSH, but my opinion, that I feel is fairly balanced

 "Tipuric probably shouldn't have been on tour (because of his fitness) and Cuthbert was lucky to get a start in the first place (though at least he was on the bench for the 2nd Test)."


Bizarre Sin