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.

.

 Optimist - you should know better that trying to convert the Pessimists - They'll never relent, NEVER

optimist wrote:I've followed rugby since the mid-'50s and would like to point out something about the '74 Lions to South Africa.

Mike Gibson went out as a replacement, but not as a centre - though he was still then the best centre in the NH, if not the world.  As a fly-half back-up to Bennett, he didn't play in the tests. Until BOD came along, I think most people would put Gibson down as the best centre who ever played the game.

But for all 4 Lions tests in '74, the centre partnership was Dick Milliken (Ireland) and Ian McGeechan (Scotland).  Geech as a centre wasn't in Gibson's class.  It was the two centres' great work as a combination that saw them get the nod.  Does that remind anyone of the O'Driscoll/Davies/Roberts scenario?

In case anyone also needs reminding, both the '74 Lions captain (Willie-John McBride) and the coach (Syd Millar) were from Ireland. Like Gatland in 2013, they picked a team to do the job.  The difference is that back then there was none of the bitter moaning we've heard this time.

Optimist
I remember the 1970-73 years very well, sometimes we get all starry eyed over players and their history but Mike was imperious during that period (and probably before) and wasn't it work rather than injury/from saw him join the Lions late in 74. I think that John Dawes was the better centre in 71 but its Gibbos versatility that made him such a rugby god, didn't he play in five positions for Ireland. My first ever rugby match as a wee bairn was combined England / Wales v Scotland / Ireland Centenary of RFU celebration match in which Gibson played 13 with Frame at 12 just a fantastic period.

To be fair to people, there are better communication links now and players and coaches get analysed to the nth degree and rightly so.

fly what Im saying is gatland won a series . only the fifth one and people going on about tactics who cares if he did get it wrong first game ,we won it. . when Wales posters kept mentioning Wales was only a couple points from losing the 3 games during Welsh tour last year . we soon was shot down by posters stating Wales lost doesn't matter how close the circumstance , Wales lost against Australia . now Im saying doesn't matter what the circumstance British and Irish lions won Australia . think i need a lie down now .

RubyGuby wrote: Optimist - you should know better that trying to convert the Pessimists - They'll never relent, NEVER

eh, Willie John/Syd Miller stayed loyal to their original selection (unlike Gatty).  

RubyGuby wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: 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.

He made hard work of it, Ruby.  He made it look a very tough assignment.  

(his choice) was as superfluous as BOD.

?

Yeah he made it look a tough assignment alright, but judging by the reponses it should have been a cake walk shouldn't it.

JD and Foxy have been a successful centre pairing for 3 years

Ahem probably would have been if you could have split JD and Foxy into two.............. do you mean JD1 and Foxy? (is there something you know that we should as well  )

Yes we won, but we failed to impress SH rugby fans because we played Warrenball (zzzz) for two and a half tests then the players took matters into their own hands and played the game how they wanted to.

Gatland doesn't deserve any credit for that, he was a very poor Lions coach.

Sin é wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Optimist - you should know better that trying to convert the Pessimists - They'll never relent, NEVER

eh, Willie John/Syd Miller stayed loyal to their original selection (unlike Gatty).  

What was Gatlands original selection?

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:fly what Im saying is  gatland won a series .  only the fifth one and people going on about  tactics who cares if he did get it wrong first game  ,we won it.      . when Wales posters kept mentioning Wales was only a couple points from losing the 3 games during Welsh tour last year . we soon was shot down  by  posters stating   Wales lost doesn't matter how close the circumstance , Wales lost against Australia .   now Im saying  doesn't matter what the circumstance   British and Irish lions won Australia   .   think i need a lie down now .  

Well depends on your mindset jimmy

Do you honestly believe we should have won either of the first two tests?.
Do you think if Oz had taken the FIVE pens in the first half of the 3rd test, we would have won?.

Lets not paper over the cracks, this was the best prepared, best conditioned, fittest with overall the most talented group of players to leave on a Lions tour. Gatlands poor selections and tactics contrived to c0ck it up in spite of all this.

Or do you think that we won and that's all that mattered?

flyhalffactory wrote:

Sin é wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Optimist - you should know better that trying to convert the Pessimists - They'll never relent, NEVER

eh, Willie John/Syd Miller stayed loyal to their original selection (unlike Gatty).  

What was Gatlands original selection?

In the tests, 13 BOD & 12 Davies. He parachuted Roberts (12) for the 3rd test.

Scrumpy wrote:Yes we won, but we failed to impress SH rugby fans because we played Warrenball (zzzz) for two and a half tests then the players took matters into their own hands and played the game how they wanted to.

Gatland doesn't deserve any credit for that, he was a very poor Lions coach.

Wow, this is a new one. Now Gatland's the villain who did everything in his power to prevent a series win - and he would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky players!

On the point of impressing southern-hemisphere rugby fans, I'm pretty sure they respect results.

Sin é wrote:

The Bachelor wrote:

Sin é wrote:How many farewell matches did Gatland pick Shane Williams for again?

one? Unless you're counting all of the RWC as farewell matches too.

I thought it was 2 (it seemed to be a very long farewell anyway). Decent of Gatland on that occasion to let sentiment get in the way of his ruthless desire for success.  

Maybe you're thinking of the games he was playing for the Ospreys in the PRO12 where every weekend seemed to be his last game due to the O's getting into the playoffs then winning in the final.

wrong fly   but we did win it and in four years time i would take the same win again .

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:wrong fly       but we did win it and in four years time i would take the same win again .  

Wrong about what?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Taylorman wrote:JD let the try in after not running the lines BOD ran in snuffing out his man in the second test. Its a one off but it made the difference even though others played as much a role in the loss.

All I'm saying is Gatland went for an establish pair over the merits of the individuals, and it worked. With a stable midfield 'pair' the backline functioned with confidence and structure.

Mate that's your view and IMHO its clearly incorrect....... I have viewed this singularly and with many mates during and after the 2nd test, and the pre 3rd test match BBQ party with 17 (sober at the time guys and gals) agreed when you view the last 45 seconds before the try, that BOD was out of position and was running from the breakdown sideways to JOC, he actually never tackled his man before the 10 made the pass. It doesn't matter what view you took it from. 13 of my mates all gaffawed at me before the second by second analysis but it was unanimous by the end of the 45 second slow-mo

You are quite right it certainly did make a diff, and when you look at the full 75 seconds before the try there was ample opportunities to stop the onslaught from poor clearances to missed tackles. No one man was to blame, least of all Davies attempting to stop an outside centre running like a steam train from 4 metres.

I agree with you that the selection was the right call in the 3rd test

 

OOOOH lets all do a     

That's makes so much more sense now that I have put four icons to your one.............. well done me!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Yes we won, but we failed to impress SH rugby fans because we played Warrenball (zzzz) for two and a half tests then the players took matters into their own hands and played the game how they wanted to.

Gatland doesn't deserve any credit for that, he was a very poor Lions coach.

Wow, this is a new one. Now Gatland's the villain who did everything in his power to prevent a series win - and he would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky players!

It wouldn't be the first time, England did a similar thing in the 2007 RWC.
Maybe the BOD, Sexton and Heaslip rumour wanting Gatland to play a different style was true?

sorry flyhalf i was talking to secret fly .that's why i said wrong fly   

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:sorry flyhalf  i was talking to  secret fly .that's why i said   wrong fly     

Ah sorry mate.............. there are too many "flys" in this ointment

flyhalffactory wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
 

OOOOH lets all do a     

That's makes so much more sense now that I have put four icons to your one.............. well done me!

Fine



You think BoD was out of position when JoC is the figure at the top of the pic behind the goalpost and BoD is 5 metres or more to his right.BoD is not running from the ruck he is standing still and in perfect position to cover JoC.

BoD is the figure on the far right of the pic looking at JoC.

The Bachelor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The Bachelor wrote:

Sin é wrote:How many farewell matches did Gatland pick Shane Williams for again?

one? Unless you're counting all of the RWC as farewell matches too.

I thought it was 2 (it seemed to be a very long farewell anyway). Decent of Gatland on that occasion to let sentiment get in the way of his ruthless desire for success.  

Maybe you're thinking of the games he was playing for the Ospreys in the PRO12 where every weekend seemed to be his last game due to the O's getting into the playoffs then winning in the final.

There was at least two 'final' games for him in Wales - Babas in the Millenium and then Australia (again) after the world cup. Then he was retiring, then he decided he wasn't!

 I guess you can't get too much of a good thing eh sin

RubyGuby wrote: I guess you can't get too much of a good thing eh sin

Yea, Gats knows who has to butter his bread for the next couple of years and best to hang on in there in wales but he knows no one else will want him.

The Irish & Scots might be up to reuniting the old Vern Cotter/Joe Schmidt coaching ticket for the next Lions.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
 

OOOOH lets all do a     

That's makes so much more sense now that I have put four icons to your one.............. well done me!

Fine



You think BoD was out of position when JoC is the figure at the top of the pic behind the goalpost and BoD is 5 metres or more to his right.BoD is not running from the ruck he is standing still and in perfect position to cover JoC.

BoD is the figure on the far right of the pic looking at JoC.

Davies and AAC conveniently out of shot....  

I didn't realise Gatland was coaching the Baa Baas as well!

The Bachelor wrote:I didn't realise Gatland was coaching the Baa Baas as well!

I didn't claim he did. He apparently retired after the world cup, but yet was persuaded to play against Australia for a swan song for him (though in reality the WRU were just using shane to milk the gullible welsh public). He reappeared again for another swansong with the Babaas because the WRU wanted to extract more cash from the Welsh public.

After handing over all their hand earned cash to see Shane one last time, we have to listen to smart comments about how Gatland only picks players for all the right rugby reasons and that we Irish are going find it difficult to drop BOD and will take it badly. I can guarantee that BOD will want to retire (and we will want him to) with his dignity intact.

Sin é wrote:

The Bachelor wrote:I didn't realise Gatland was coaching the Baa Baas as well!

I didn't claim he did. He apparently retired after the world cup, but yet was persuaded to play against Australia for a swan song for him (though in reality the WRU were just using shane to milk the gullible welsh public). He reappeared again for another swansong with the Babaas because the WRU wanted to extract more cash from the Welsh public.

After handing over all their hand earned cash to see Shane one last time, we have to listen to smart comments about how Gatland only picks players for all the right rugby reasons and that we Irish are going find it difficult to drop BOD and will take it badly. I can guarantee that BOD will want to retire (and we will want him to) with his dignity intact.

Yes, but your comment was "How many farewell matches did Gatland pick Shane Williams for again?" which was one; just over a month after the 3/4 game vs Oz in the RWC. Not a massive stretch to think he'd still be up to standard.

Sin é wrote:

optimist wrote:I've followed rugby since the mid-'50s and would like to point out something about the '74 Lions to South Africa.

Mike Gibson went out as a replacement, but not as a centre - though he was still then the best centre in the NH, if not the world.  As a fly-half back-up to Bennett, he didn't play in the tests. Until BOD came along, I think most people would put Gibson down as the best centre who ever played the game.

But for all 4 Lions tests in '74, the centre partnership was Dick Milliken (Ireland) and Ian McGeechan (Scotland).  Geech as a centre wasn't in Gibson's class.  It was the two centres' great work as a combination that saw them get the nod.  Does that remind anyone of the O'Driscoll/Davies/Roberts scenario?

In case anyone also needs reminding, both the '74 Lions captain (Willie-John McBride) and the coach (Syd Millar) were from Ireland. Like Gatland in 2013, they picked a team to do the job.  The difference is that back then there was none of the bitter moaning we've heard this time.

All that suggests is that Willie John McBride/Syd Miller were not prone to tribal selections (though Moss Keane says in his bio that on the Lions Tour to NZ, Gibson upset the Lions management by bringing his wife on tour and although playing well, wasn't selected for the Tests).

edit: and Optimist, Gibson missed most the SA tour due to work commitments (and only went out as a replacement flyhalf anyway).   Dropping McGeechan for Gibson would have been like dropping North/Cutbert for an unfit Shane Williams.

I agree with the fact that Mike Gibson went out as a replacement fly-half in '74 - but then I would because I'd already said so in my post!

The rest is your opinion, which I don't agree with.

And that was a response to a comment that if Gatland was still Ireland coach, he would have dropped a load of players including BOD a long time ago because he isn't sentimental.Well, from what I can see, he was very happy to go along with selecting Shane Williams even though he was retired from international rugby presumably to please his masters in the WRU - there was absolutely no other reason why Shane Williams was brought back out of his international retirement.

So message is, Gatland doesn't always make his selections as he claims for rugby reasons.

optimist wrote:

Sin é wrote:

optimist wrote:I've followed rugby since the mid-'50s and would like to point out something about the '74 Lions to South Africa.

Mike Gibson went out as a replacement, but not as a centre - though he was still then the best centre in the NH, if not the world.  As a fly-half back-up to Bennett, he didn't play in the tests. Until BOD came along, I think most people would put Gibson down as the best centre who ever played the game.

But for all 4 Lions tests in '74, the centre partnership was Dick Milliken (Ireland) and Ian McGeechan (Scotland).  Geech as a centre wasn't in Gibson's class.  It was the two centres' great work as a combination that saw them get the nod.  Does that remind anyone of the O'Driscoll/Davies/Roberts scenario?

In case anyone also needs reminding, both the '74 Lions captain (Willie-John McBride) and the coach (Syd Millar) were from Ireland. Like Gatland in 2013, they picked a team to do the job.  The difference is that back then there was none of the bitter moaning we've heard this time.

All that suggests is that Willie John McBride/Syd Miller were not prone to tribal selections (though Moss Keane says in his bio that on the Lions Tour to NZ, Gibson upset the Lions management by bringing his wife on tour and although playing well, wasn't selected for the Tests).

edit: and Optimist, Gibson missed most the SA tour due to work commitments (and only went out as a replacement flyhalf anyway).   Dropping McGeechan for Gibson would have been like dropping North/Cutbert for an unfit Shane Williams.

I agree with the fact that Mike Gibson went out as a replacement fly-half in '74 - but then I would because I'd already said so in my post!

The rest is your opinion, which I don't agree with.

Which part do you not agree with then? That Syd Miller/WJMcB by not selecting their good friend & countryman (they were all Ulstermen at that!), Mike Gibson for a test were partisan?

The bit about Gibson bringin his wife is the reason Moss Keane gives, not me!

Sin é wrote:And that was a response to a comment that if Gatland was still Ireland coach, he would have dropped a load of players including BOD a long time ago because he isn't sentimental.Well, from what I can see, he was very happy to go along with selecting Shane Williams even though he was retired from international rugby presumably to please his masters in the WRU - there was absolutely no other reason why Shane Williams was brought back out of his international retirement.

So message is, Gatland doesn't always make his selections as he claims for rugby reasons.

Sin, Williams was the only player who could get there AND do a days training before the game. The rest would have flown in and missed training. That's the only reason Williams was called up. He was on a flight there anyway to do commentating.

 Come on Sin you've got to give this up mate - BOD was a classy player and scored 46 trys in 121 appearances with the golden generation, However, ickle Shane playing for a shoite welsh team for the first 6 years amassed 58 trys in only 87 appearances. We can't let the facts get in the way too much. BOD has been a good servant for his country and the Lions and he will be fondly remembered by all of us. Shane on the other hand; well that's a whole thread in itself

RubyGuby wrote: Come on Sin you've got to give this up mate - BOD was a classy player and scored 46 trys in 121 appearances with the golden generation, However, ickle Shane playing for a shoite welsh team for the first 6 years amassed 58 trys in only 87 appearances. We can't let the facts get in the way too much. BOD has been a good servant for his country and the Lions and he will be fondly remembered by all of us. Shane on the other hand; well that's a whole thread in itself

Ruby is your keyboard stuck on the thumbs up emoticon?...  I think we've got that your tone is friendly by now  

flyhalffactory wrote:

Taylorman wrote:JD let the try in after not running the lines BOD ran in snuffing out his man in the second test. Its a one off but it made the difference even though others played as much a role in the loss.

All I'm saying is Gatland went for an establish pair over the merits of the individuals, and it worked. With a stable midfield 'pair' the backline functioned with confidence and structure.

Mate that's your view and IMHO its clearly incorrect....... I have viewed this singularly and with many mates during and after the 2nd test, and the pre 3rd test match BBQ party with 17 (sober at the time guys and gals) agreed when you view the last 45 seconds before the try, that BOD was out of position and was running from the breakdown sideways to JOC, he actually never tackled his man before the 10 made the pass. It doesn't matter what view you took it from. 13 of my mates all gaffawed at me before the second by second analysis but it was unanimous by the end of the 45 second slow-mo

You are quite right it certainly did make a diff, and when you look at the full 75 seconds before the try there was ample opportunities to stop the onslaught from poor clearances to missed tackles. No one man was to blame, least of all Davies attempting to stop an outside centre running like a steam train from 4 metres.

I agree with you that the selection was the right call in the 3rd test

Well I didnt need to watch it multiple times with 13 other blokes to know it was JD not working in tandem with BOD in smothering the defence, and it wouldnt matter how drunk I was. Youve over analysed to the point that youve created something that wasnt there. BOD took the lead and JD wasnt quick enough to respond. Its not necessarily about just being in position its about reading the play and adapting. BOD put his man down, well out from the line. JD didnt follow his lead in trusting that BOD would cover his man and was too slow in covering the space to the right, creating the gap.

If you see anything else then thats fine. Point for me is Gats didnt want this 'non reading of the minds' for his 3rd test pair and even if in this instance JD was more at fault, having a BOD JR pairing might produce the same or similar scenario, BOD missing out through not having a solid connection with another centre.

As it was Roberts and JD combined nicely. Gats went with the odds of that happening and it worked, and was no reflection of BOD, it was about the combination working together.

Anyway, thats flaming obvious.

Simple really............ doesn't matter how much smoke screen you attempt to put. BOD should have been next to Bowe in the 13 channel, he wasn't. Bod at best should have been face on to the player receiving the ball from the breakdown...... when the ball came out he 100% wasn't. He however wacked his digit up to Foxy who had been screaming at him 5 seconds before to cover the 3 on 2 overlap that was on however he was directing traffic at the rear middle of the breakdown actually cajoling a knackered Lydiate to plug up the defensive hole.

As a result he didn't see the ball coming out to O'Connor............ he then had to attempt to cover the gap between O'Connor who was 10m plus out, he didn't even manage to get to him before the 5m line.

Its not rocket science when a full on BOD couldn't reach his man, the only reason JOC didn't go over himself was that Foxy was attempting to cover the flyhalfs run and the pass to Ashley Cooper, so all he did was drift until Davies had no option but to cover tackle him. BOD might have attempted to fool some with his finger up "I have got him Foxy, and you cover the outside centre" but the net result was he didn't get close to him even tho O'Connor was drifting out.

Maybe you should watch it again............ before attempting to suggest one man was to blame for been covering the outside and inside centre channel less than 5 metres from his try line,

yes...the net result...partnership not working...get a better one...thats what gats did, regardless of the rest. And it worked. And its one you and many wouldnt have picked...and he gets shot down for it.

Taylorman wrote:yes...the net result...partnership not working...get a better one...thats what gats did, regardless of the rest. And it worked. And its one you and many wouldnt have picked...and he gets shot down for it.

2nd Test - It wasn't the midfield combo that didn't work, it was the tactics employed that was diabolical "We are one-up so lets Contain/Restrain and hope for the breakaway". The selection of a not fully fit Bowe over an on-fire but slightly defensively suspect Cuthbert summed up his approach to the 2nd test.

3rd Test - Hey 29 out of 36 matches together............... Roberts/Davies. It was the right call, well done Mr G, and I said we have been backed into a corner now and it was our only option. However Davies/BOD if used in the right way would have worked in any of the tests.

That was the most talented squad leaving and they won in spite of the "plan A only" tactic (as I said if Aussies had the balls they would have taken the five pens in the first half and could have been 12 up come halftime).

flyhalffactory wrote:Simple really............ doesn't matter how much smoke screen you attempt to put. BOD should have been next to Bowe in the 13 channel, he wasn't. Bod at best should have been face on to the player receiving the ball from the breakdown...... when the ball came out he 100% wasn't. He however wacked his digit up to Foxy who had been screaming at him 5 seconds before to cover the 3 on 2 overlap that was on however he was directing traffic at the rear middle of the breakdown actually cajoling a knackered Lydiate to plug up the defensive hole.

As a result he didn't see the ball coming out to O'Connor............ he then had to attempt to cover the gap between O'Connor who was 10m plus out, he didn't even manage to get to him before the 5m line.

Its not rocket science when a full on BOD couldn't reach his man, the only reason JOC didn't go over himself was that Foxy was attempting to cover the flyhalfs run and the pass to Ashley Cooper, so all he did was drift until Davies had no option but to cover tackle him. BOD might have attempted to fool some with his finger up "I have got him Foxy, and you cover the outside centre" but the net result was he didn't get close to him even tho O'Connor was drifting out.

Maybe you should watch it again............ before attempting to suggest one man was to blame for been covering the outside and inside centre channel less than 5 metres from his try line,

He was actually

For goodness sake a freeze frame at a certain angle does not paint the true picture. I have put the utube extract on twice here with a second by second freeze. I am not going to do it again, look at BODs body angle it says it all at best its going to be a side on tackle and that what it was.

HOWEVER THE BALL HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED WHEN BOD TACKLED JOC. There's nothing more to be said

flyhalffactory wrote:For goodness sake a freeze frame at a certain angle does not paint the true picture. I have put the utube extract on twice here with a second by second freeze. I am not going to do it again, look at BODs body angle it says it all at best its going to be a side on tackle and that what it was.

HOWEVER THE BALL HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED WHEN BOD TACKLED JOC. There's nothing more to be said

There's plenty more to be said when you're spouting guff like that.So what if at best it's a side on tackle,the defender doesn't get to choose what type of tackle he makes he simply gets the man down as best he can.Why do you keep mentioning that JoC passed before he was tackled,I'm obviously taking it to extreme here but do you consider every time a flyhalf gets a pass away that is a missed tackle by their opposite number?If not how can you consider this instance to be BoD's mistake.

Also that freeze frame is up close and directly behind the play whereas the youtube clip you  put up is from much further away and from the halfway line so it's the clip that is from the wrong angle.

If you don't like a picture maybe a video will help.

It looks pretty clear to me that JD was at fault for that try but who cares, all players make mistakes and he certainly made up for it.

nathan wrote:It looks pretty clear to me that JD was at fault for that try but who cares, all players make mistakes and he certainly made up for it.

Yeah agree with you I don't really care but I'm just arguing the point for the same reason I'd argue if someone tried to tell me 2+2=5.

Mate I never said it was BODs in fact I am saying the opposite, I have always said it was not one mans mistake. I am just saying if we are going to crucify one player then look at the whole passage of play. I have only defended Foxy with the drivel that it was his mistake.

Doesn't matter if you wacked a dozen views of the game............ the passage of play is the same, in fact it gets even worse when we see the kicks and the poor and missed tackles that led to the breakdown forming, and after it

flyhalffactory wrote:Mate I never said it was BODs in fact I am saying the opposite, I have always said it was not one mans mistake. I am just saying if we are going to crucify one player then look at the whole passage of play. I have only defended Foxy with the drivel that it was his mistake.

Doesn't matter if you wacked a dozen views of the game............ the passage of play is the same, in fact it gets even worse when we see the kicks and the poor and missed tackles that led to the breakdown forming, and after it

Well the whole passage of play might look bad but for that single phase Davies made the mistake.The Lions had 4 defenders,Lydiate,BoD,Davies,Bowe versus 3 Aussie attackers.Davies went to tackle BoD's man and left the gap for his man to score.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

nathan wrote:It looks pretty clear to me that JD was at fault for that try but who cares, all players make mistakes and he certainly made up for it.

Yeah agree with you I don't really care but I'm just arguing the point for the same reason I'd argue if someone tried to tell me 2+2=5.

Same here

* 13 should have been in the 13 slot............... wasn't
* 13 if in the perfect defensive position would have got the tackle................ didn't
* The opposition player receiving the ball drifted to the 5m line before offloading, the fact is he could have gone either way i.e. drift wide pulling the defensive line or cut inside as he had the time to go direct. Either way result would have been the same

Same for me I don't give a monkeys as I have no allegiance to Ireland or Wales players just cannae believe as in your words "the guff"

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:Mate I never said it was BODs in fact I am saying the opposite, I have always said it was not one mans mistake. I am just saying if we are going to crucify one player then look at the whole passage of play. I have only defended Foxy with the drivel that it was his mistake.

Doesn't matter if you wacked a dozen views of the game............ the passage of play is the same, in fact it gets even worse when we see the kicks and the poor and missed tackles that led to the breakdown forming, and after it

Well the whole passage of play might look bad but for that single phase Davies made the mistake.The Lions had 4 defenders,Lydiate,BoD,Davies,Bowe versus 3 Aussie attackers.Davies went to tackle BoD's man and left the gap for his man to score.

Beggars Belief

Utter total tripe

flyhalffactory wrote:Beggars Belief

Flyhalf, I don't doubt your sincerity, and I certainly don't think you are trying to score any points for the sake of it, but I have to add my voice to those who see JD as at fault for the try.

I've seen your explanations but, when I read them alongside the video, it feels like one of those Hitler clips where someone has created a whole new storyline to replace the original script.

Sin é wrote:

optimist wrote:

Sin é wrote:

optimist wrote:I've followed rugby since the mid-'50s and would like to point out something about the '74 Lions to South Africa.

Mike Gibson went out as a replacement, but not as a centre - though he was still then the best centre in the NH, if not the world.  As a fly-half back-up to Bennett, he didn't play in the tests. Until BOD came along, I think most people would put Gibson down as the best centre who ever played the game.

But for all 4 Lions tests in '74, the centre partnership was Dick Milliken (Ireland) and Ian McGeechan (Scotland).  Geech as a centre wasn't in Gibson's class.  It was the two centres' great work as a combination that saw them get the nod.  Does that remind anyone of the O'Driscoll/Davies/Roberts scenario?

In case anyone also needs reminding, both the '74 Lions captain (Willie-John McBride) and the coach (Syd Millar) were from Ireland. Like Gatland in 2013, they picked a team to do the job.  The difference is that back then there was none of the bitter moaning we've heard this time.

All that suggests is that Willie John McBride/Syd Miller were not prone to tribal selections (though Moss Keane says in his bio that on the Lions Tour to NZ, Gibson upset the Lions management by bringing his wife on tour and although playing well, wasn't selected for the Tests).

edit: and Optimist, Gibson missed most the SA tour due to work commitments (and only went out as a replacement flyhalf anyway).   Dropping McGeechan for Gibson would have been like dropping North/Cutbert for an unfit Shane Williams.

I agree with the fact that Mike Gibson went out as a replacement fly-half in '74 - but then I would because I'd already said so in my post!

The rest is your opinion, which I don't agree with.

Which part do you not agree with then? That Syd Miller/WJMcB by not selecting their good friend & countryman (they were all Ulstermen at that!), Mike Gibson for a test were partisan?

The bit about Gibson bringin his wife is the reason Moss Keane gives, not me!

Sorry to overlook what Moss Keane wrote in his book.  But that's a matter of fact, not opinion.

If you'd simply said "That suggests Willie-John McBride/Syd Millar were not prone to making tribal selections ......", I wouldn't argue because it seems to be true..

But you actually said "ALL that suggests is that Willie-John McBride/Syd Millar were not prone to making tribal selections......" (my capitals).  The word "all" makes all the difference - excuse the pun - because it completely ignores my contention in the immediately following sentence that the difference between then and now is the bitter moaning.

Expanding my previous opinion, I'd say that much of the current moaning (not from BOD who has conducted himself impeccably) contrasts very unfavourably with how supporters of Ireland behaved in '74.

optimist wrote:

Expanding my previous opinion, I'd say that much of the current moaning (not from BOD who has conducted himself impeccably) contrasts very unfavourably with how supporters of Ireland behaved in '74.

Your opinion and a very different age.  This isn't doctors and farmers and business men and pub owners going off on Great White Hunter excursions to shoot wildlife, hellraise in the most deliciously non-politically correct boorish and (male) chauvinistic way and have a bit of sport too to help the appetite along, what ho!  
It's a modern dog-eat-dog world where players have careers, and their earning potential depends on what they do at every level - club, International and then onto Lions.  It's business - and if you try to screw some business partners to gain an advantage for your own company then you'll get alerted to the fact and you'll get your criticism.

Gatland is a big man.  He can handle the pressure.  He certainly knows how to create it.

 

"This isn't doctors and farmers and business men and pub owners going off"

Try telling Jamie, Lydiate, AWJ and Hibbard that as in that order thems their professions - C'mon Fly give me some challenge here  

When I hear my full name being mentioned in dispatches I already know I'm challenging Ruby

The docs and farmer stuff.  Yeah, there's a show on the BEEB called Countryfile?  You probably know it.  There is a particular guy we in my family always have a little laugh at.  He's a 'farmer', owns lots of land and breeds rare farm breeds - sheep, cattle etc.

We laugh because he does his weekly stint of 'on the farm' fun where he pretends he's always around on the farm when we all know he's much too busy being a TV personality.  We laugh and think of his poor farm managers who must see him come over the horizon every week for his 'on the farm' stunt filming.  "Oh here he comes...catching sheep and herding cattle and picking up hooves. He always looks bloomin' marvelous and then we pick up the pieces of his mayhem when he leaves with his TV mates again."

flyhalffactory wrote:

Taylorman wrote:yes...the net result...partnership not working...get a better one...thats what gats did, regardless of the rest. And it worked. And its one you and many wouldnt have picked...and he gets shot down for it.

2nd Test - It wasn't the midfield combo that didn't work, it was the tactics employed that was diabolical "We are one-up so lets Contain/Restrain and hope for the breakaway". The selection of a not fully fit Bowe over an on-fire but slightly defensively suspect Cuthbert summed up his approach to the 2nd test.

3rd Test - Hey 29 out of 36 matches together............... Roberts/Davies. It was the right call, well done Mr G, and I said we have been backed into a corner now and it was our only option. However Davies/BOD if used in the right way would have worked in any of the tests.

That was the most talented squad leaving and they won in spite of the "plan A only" tactic (as I said if Aussies had the balls they would have taken the five pens in the first half and could have been 12 up come halftime).

You know you look at this as if its all one jolly analytical exercise. Fact is NH sides struggle with SH sides at best, let alone beat them.
here you are after a win debating how bad it is. Its not always the 'gameplan' that loses a match- In the second test it was also horrible execution by so many players, wayward kicks and the like and also a desperate opposition who also had something to say about how the Lions went.

This was an average Lions side, not a lot better than their opposition so youre getting carried away there.

We played Ireland last year at thrashed them 3-0 for two of the tests and for some reason our 'gameplan' went to pieces in the other. We put that down to a courageous ireland side disrupting our plans. get a grip. Take the series win and move on.

Thayre not that good that they can come sailing in with a 3-0 win- far from it. None of that side would make the AB 15 except for maybe a prop and Halfpenny on a bad Dagg day, which is generally how I measure sides.

Oz were so inept and unlucky in the first two youre lucky you werent 2-0 down and most of that wasnt Gats fault but to preach perfection for the series is just plain ludicrous.