Gatland- one kiwi opinion...

First topic message reminder :

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/8916219/NZRU-need-to-show-some-love-for-Gatland

I came to the same opinion after this series and am also in the same boat as other kiwis that probably didnt follow his career that closely- I mean Connachct, the wasps are hardly anything we'd care about.

So this post is not meant to stir the pot, though some will. For me its now about where Gatland fits in the NZ game, does he now deserve a higher pecking order on the AB list and just as importantly whether NZ deserves Gatland given its cold shoulder in the past.

The reality is, neither owes the other, both (and now many others outside NZ) have benefitted enormously from that that is NZ rugby but I think that by some magical bonding that exists between the AB's and Kiwi's, time will eventually bring the two together...eventually, especially having seen much more of Gatland these last few weeks than ever before.

Taylorman wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:


 Gee ziz Rory you asked me to explain the basic historic waikato platforms from which their Style is derived,and I did, But it now appears that was not what you were seeking, you were looking for an opportunity to be able to voice some greivance you appear to hold against warren Gatland. and based on some weird conclusion that because wales has big backs and Gatland has had success with them that he would make some sort of hopeless coach of the ABs.

 You may accuse the Welsh of playing one dimensional rugby, but perhaps its your lack of appreciation as to how hard gatland has got the Welsh players working thats one dimensional.


 The bottom line is that Gatland is a very, very good coach.

If that is all you got from what I had to say, then there isn't much more to discuss unfortunately.

That's all I got from what you said as well.
A few of you Irish keep repeating yourselves despite having been shot down by the NZ posters. Are you struggling with comprehension?

FFS, you this, you that, you English, you Welsh, you Scots, you SH'ers, you martians etc

Bringing somebody's origins into it as many have taken up the habit of doing is a disgusting and pathetic attempt to derail the initial argument and generalise degradingly on an entire group, which in case you needed reminding is basically racism, borderline if nothing else. It has become a norm over the course of the tour and I for one am sick of it snaking its way into most if not all serious discussions. I'm beginning to take offence to it even when I'm not the one targeted as in this instance.

Sorry to all who are unconcerned, just had to get that off my chest as the regularity of it being used provocatively and antagonistically is becoming unreal!

good point. Its something that goes on at a lower level indefinitely but this Lions tour has exaggerated the problem, highlighted by the dropping of BOD. From there it became and all in, mainly the Welsh vs the Irish with the kiwis jumping in and supported their own as well. For this reason alone the Lions as a concept is serving to split NH opinion rather than bring it together and why in this case the coach must come from one of the four, in my opinion. Trouble is...with Smit,  Gatland and Cotter at the helm of three of the four it only leaves Lancaster...

No. It's idiots on message boards that are causing that problem

The one thing with NZ and SA which i like is that each coach knows to get the top job they must prove themselves in thier country with their media watching.

I think Cotter and Smit will rise or fall with their international results esp if either do the unthinkable and beat NZ. I think that would go along way for the three NH kiwis over anything else bar winning the WRC.

Brendan wrote:The one thing with NZ and SA which i like is that each coach knows to get the top job they must prove themselves in thier country with their media watching.I think Cotter and Smit will rise or fall with their international results esp if either do the unthinkable and beat NZ.  I think that would go along way for the three NH kiwis over anything else bar winning the WRC.

Its not the media that they have to worry about, its us experts.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Brendan wrote:The one thing with NZ and SA which i like is that each coach knows to get the top job they must prove themselves in thier country with their media watching.I think Cotter and Smit will rise or fall with their international results esp if either do the unthinkable and beat NZ.  I think that would go along way for the three NH kiwis over anything else bar winning the WRC.

Its not the media that they have to worry about, its us experts.

But with them coaching in NZ you get a full report where as with those outside even deans with Aus you probably only get half the story.

If gats does't get it after Hansen do you think his chance is gone. There seems to be so many top NZ coaches that the window for getting the top job must be small.

I think JK's passion will ultimately get him into the panel- having won the 'kiwi most people can trust' award can't hurt either...

Don't know about Blackadder- as good as they are the Saders havnt won under him yet. Just reminds of his same abilities as a player- solid, reliable but without the x factor. Rennies the bolter but all said, Gatland has by far the strongest cv from an international sense.

Brendon, its about seeing the same coaches coaching the  players playing against each other. its sometimes misleading to compare a coach who is coaching a New Zealand team in a New Zealand  competition against a coach who is involved in the six nations,Heineken cup.

 I think you are right if Gatty doesnt get the appointment after Hansen, then he never will.

I personally would like to see Rennie in there somehow. Hearing him speak on radiosport he has the right temperament and obviously coaching ability. He's a bit similar to Ted I reckon. Gatland is also a bit similar. Strong guys that are out and out coaches.

The rest including Joseph, Hammet, Kirwan and Blackadder are all ex-players and they just seem to come across as so. I've heard these coaches criticise their players in a way that Ted and Rennie wouldn't, or that I can recall. These ex-player coaches are too honest and maybe they think they need to be transparent about everything. For me, I don't wanna hear about troubles in the media, just fix it on the paddock. But I don't mean handling issues like the way Mitchell and Deans did, that was unacceptable, more like Ted and Shag. They don't hang the players out to dry.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Thank You blackcan, For a while there I thought I was explaining rugby basics on the ice hockey section.

You raise a good point with Duanne Monkley; Some of the Irish experts appear to think that a style of rugby restricts a team from playing expansive options,

Well... you're talking about Waikato's style while we're on about Gatland's style! Gatland's way of playing isn't about expansive rugby. James Hook for example has hardly got a look in for Wales. No style restricts teams from having expansive options but coaches do.

Taylorman wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Yeah the ABs dont rely on 'big strong players' as such...not even sure what that means. An Oz win over NZ is rare these days, a Lions win over Oz history making so its not the same thing.

Ewen Mck and his side have a huge task ahead of them if the Oz side in the Lions series turns up. Cooper will be back and frankly although he would have gone better than JOC vs the Lions he usually goes terribly vs the ABs who expose his poorer side to the max.

Any coach that takes up the AB post will know its about what opportunities are available and Gatlands not dumb enough to ignore that. The fear of losing is more real for the ABs than any other side because they simply refuse to lose, ever, No other side works with that mentality.

And the best way to realise that is to put the match away well before the end of the match, and attack is the best way to do that. Picking defensive players wont achieve that. You dont maintain a near 90% win rate through defensive strategy alone and Gatland will know that, so will the players, and fans. He might have staunch selection policies but if results don't come he'll have to deal with some very irate and impatient shareholders.

Really?As far as I know the Lions have a pretty significant winning record against Oz and beating them is nothing new.

really? When was the last 3 test series wim?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=when+was+the+last+lions+3+test+series+win+versus+australia

The Saint wrote:But he has more options available with NZ, so would be able to play any way he wanted, which is what the Kiwi's keep telling you every time you repeat yourself.

No, one NZ fan (aucklandlaurie) tried to shoot my comments down, and I couldn't be bothered discussing it with him. Or anyone else who simply retorts with "anti-Gatland agenda" when I say Gatland plays a one dimensional style of rugby (nor am I the only one to think this, and like I said it works well with Wales). The likes of Taylorman seemed mature enough to discuss it unlike yourself (surprise surprise).

Now run along, I'm sure you have plenty more anti-Welsh threads to police on the forums.

Knowsit17 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:


 Gee ziz Rory you asked me to explain the basic historic waikato platforms from which their Style is derived,and I did, But it now appears that was not what you were seeking, you were looking for an opportunity to be able to voice some greivance you appear to hold against warren Gatland. and based on some weird conclusion that because wales has big backs and Gatland has had success with them that he would make some sort of hopeless coach of the ABs.

 You may accuse the Welsh of playing one dimensional rugby, but perhaps its your lack of appreciation as to how hard gatland has got the Welsh players working thats one dimensional.


 The bottom line is that Gatland is a very, very good coach.

If that is all you got from what I had to say, then there isn't much more to discuss unfortunately.

That's all I got from what you said as well.
A few of you Irish keep repeating yourselves despite having been shot down by the NZ posters. Are you struggling with comprehension?

FFS, you this, you that, you English, you Welsh, you Scots, you SH'ers, you martians etc

Bringing somebody's origins into it as many have taken up the habit of doing is a disgusting and pathetic attempt to derail the initial argument and generalise degradingly on an entire group, which in case you needed reminding is basically racism, borderline if nothing else. It has become a norm over the course of the tour and I for one am sick of it snaking its way into most if not all serious discussions. I'm beginning to take offence to it even when I'm not the one targeted as in this instance.

Sorry to all who are unconcerned, just had to get that off my chest as the regularity of it being used provocatively and antagonistically is becoming unreal!

  Top post.

Unfortunately 90% of what "The Saint/Morgan" says contains these divisive statements though.

Gatlands propensity to one style of game would need to be fully considered here if he's as single minded as it seems many are saying. And winning the way he has...through unpopular selections... only serves to support him meaning he's more likely to take that approach with the AB's.

We would just hope that NZ Rugby isnt that dumb to not consider that and with guys like Steve Tew- who comes across as one very tuned in and intelligent bloke from what I've seen...we should be ok. A return to the Mitchell days I definitely don't want...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

The Saint wrote:But he has more options available with NZ, so would be able to play any way he wanted, which is what the Kiwi's keep telling you every time you repeat yourself.

No, one NZ fan (aucklandlaurie) tried to shoot my comments down, and I couldn't be bothered discussing it with him.  Or anyone else who simply retorts with "anti-Gatland agenda" when I say Gatland plays a one dimensional style of rugby (nor am I the only one to think this, and like I said it works well with Wales).  The likes of Taylorman seemed mature enough to discuss it unlike yourself (surprise surprise).

Now run along, I'm sure you have plenty more anti-Welsh threads to police on the forums.

Rory, thats not it at all;

You asked me, or any other fan to explain to you what Waikato type style of rugby was.

I foolishy took this as a genuine request for explanation/information and I in turn tried to give the explanation.

When you read my explanation you didnt like said explanation, as it didnt support your anti-Gatland campaign.

You then got all thin skinned and arsey.

Does gats reputation suffer in NZ due to his lack of wins against any of the big 3. Or do they not talk about it or say well it is Wales so he cant be expected to win.

I always feel that the big three only expect to get a tough game against the Celtic teams not nothing more.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

The Saint wrote:But he has more options available with NZ, so would be able to play any way he wanted, which is what the Kiwi's keep telling you every time you repeat yourself.

No, one NZ fan (aucklandlaurie) tried to shoot my comments down, and I couldn't be bothered discussing it with him.  Or anyone else who simply retorts with "anti-Gatland agenda" when I say Gatland plays a one dimensional style of rugby (nor am I the only one to think this, and like I said it works well with Wales).  The likes of Taylorman seemed mature enough to discuss it unlike yourself (surprise surprise).

Now run along, I'm sure you have plenty more anti-Welsh threads to police on the forums.

Rory, thats not  it at all;

You asked me, or any other fan to explain to you what Waikato type style  of rugby was.

I foolishy took this as a genuine request for explanation/information and I in turn tried to give the explanation.

When you read my explanation you didnt like said explanation, as it didnt support your anti-Gatland campaign.

 You then got all thin skinned and arsey.

In what way did my response suggest it wasn't a genuine request for an explanation? The fact I didn't change my opinion that his style of rugby is one dimensional and rather basic? I think you will find it is you who is getting "arsey" when someone doesn't actually agree with what you have to say. Thank you for describing the Waikato style of rugby; here is what I think. That is what my response was.

You have childishly dismissed what I have said as an anti-Gatland agenda. I'm not going to discuss anything further with you if that is what you are accusing me of. For a start you are totally wrong and I rate him highly as a coach, for his success with Wales and dominance in the northern hemisphere. Do I think he has been successful in the SH? No.

If you want to discuss the style of rugby further (you focused mostly on the forwards aspect and completely glossed over what I was actually describing as one dimensional rugby for a start) I am happy to do so. If you are going to huff with me because I don't agree with you about a coach you are clearly very fond of, then I really can't be bothered.

Anti-Gatland campaign.. grow up mate.  

In fact I think this is just part of the "dropping BOD" thing again, or the fact Wales have dominated Ireland for a few years now. Now if I have any criticism of Warren Gatland it will be dismissed as bitterness or anti-Gatland/anti-Welsh. Like I said if that is what some people think, I have absolutely no time for them and would rather discuss things with more mature posters who are slightly more open minded.

In all honesty I've know idea why Gats isnt in favour, probably because I never took any notice when the topic came up. Regardless, Gats recent efforts will make the NZRFU have to listen...they'd be silly not to.

Brendan, doesn't Gatland have a better record with Wales and the Lions than Ted and Shag? And they turned out to be good ABs coaches. So I don't think Gatland's reputation suffers at all because his record against SH is poor. If anything, I'd say the ABs will be on high alert when they next play.

Also, and I could be wrong, but it's only recently that he's even been seriously talked about as an ABs coach and people are generally accepting of it, rather than saying, 'ah, but he's only coaching wales'. He was always kinda there as an option but now it's gaining momentum.

And lastly, the ABs and fans don't expect anything without earning it. We have gotten out of jail many times in tight matches and it's miraculous that we still have our record against the celts.

So, was North's solo try in the lions series one dimensional? I'd say that was a moment of brilliance and had a bit of x-factor. Also, having had gatlandball explained to me, I actually think it's a pretty good game plan. Add a bit of x-factor mixed with forward grunt, and viola, that's a world beating team right there. One dimensional rugby to me is kicking for the corners all day, mauling, foward hit ups, yawn. That's something to complain about.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:In fact I think this is just part of the "dropping BOD" thing again, or the fact Wales have dominated Ireland for a few years now.  Now if I have any criticism of Warren Gatland it will be dismissed as bitterness or anti-Gatland/anti-Welsh.  Like I said if that is what some people think, I have absolutely no time for them and would rather discuss things with more mature posters who are slightly more open minded.

Yes but remove all the nationalism stuff and focus only on the comments of the two actually involved. For one BOD said he was dissappointed and disagreed with the decision but agreed a win was a win. He also said odds were he might have been dropped when Tuilagi and or Roberts were fit, even suggesting he was unlucky to make the bench but with Tuilagi able to cover more positions understood the bench decision.

Gatland said BOD's presence was crowding JD who was losing confidence and he wanted Sexton to come into his own as a playmaker. The pairing of JR and Davies was a tried and true one even if JD had lost some confidence.

Those two explanations, purportedly from the two involved, are perfectly sound and reasonable accounts for what happened. Gatland said it was the toughest call hes had to make to date so its not as if he cast him aside without thought. The resulting 3rd test had the backline performing at a much higher rate than the previous two tests and you simply can't fault Gatlands reasonings- Sexton and JD both performed at higher levels.

I'm happy with that as a neutral and in hindsight Gatlands insight has to be respected. Big calls take big b&^*ls.

ebop wrote:So, was North's solo try in the lions series one dimensional? I'd say that was a moment of brilliance and had a bit of x-factor. Also, having had gatlandball explained to me, I actually think it's a pretty good game plan. Add a bit of x-factor mixed with forward grunt, and viola, that's a world beating team right there. One dimensional rugby to me is kicking for the corners all day, mauling, foward hit ups, yawn. That's something to complain about.

George North is just world class though, and of course has that individual flair.  He is the perfect example of a player with both power and skill of the highest level.  Scoring individual tries doesn't really answer the question about the overall game plan of the team though.

Again, "Gatlandball" as it has been described recently is indeed a pretty good game plan because he has dominated NH rugby.  The teams in the NH haven't the power to deal with it, and tend to get worn down.  However, what you describe as "x-factor mixed with forward grunt" isn't what I am seeing.  What I see is a team that utilises solidity rather than attacking flair at 10 and 15, with big direct runners in midfield who can punch holes in the opposition defence.  The support play is good.  A mobile back row and pack is used to generate quick ball (though Phillips isn't exactly the best guy to turn to for quick service).  It has been a winning formula in the 6 nations.  Not so much against the SH teams who can deal with it better.

I don't even think George North is utilised enough with Wales, his try scoring record should be even higher than it is.

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:In fact I think this is just part of the "dropping BOD" thing again, or the fact Wales have dominated Ireland for a few years now.  Now if I have any criticism of Warren Gatland it will be dismissed as bitterness or anti-Gatland/anti-Welsh.  Like I said if that is what some people think, I have absolutely no time for them and would rather discuss things with more mature posters who are slightly more open minded.

Yes but remove all the nationalism stuff and focus only on the comments of the two actually involved. For one BOD said he was dissappointed and disagreed with the decision but agreed a win was a win. He also said odds were he might have been dropped when Tuilagi and or Roberts were fit, even suggesting he was unlucky to make the bench but with Tuilagi able to cover more positions understood the bench decision.

Gatland said BOD's presence was crowding JD who was losing confidence and he wanted Sexton to come into his own as a playmaker. The pairing of JR and Davies  was a tried and true one even if JD had lost some confidence.

Those two explanations, purportedly from the two involved, are perfectly sound and reasonable accounts for what happened. Gatland said it was the toughest call hes had to make to date so its not as if he cast him aside without thought.  The resulting 3rd test had the backline performing at a much higher rate than the previous two tests and you simply can't fault Gatlands reasonings- Sexton and JD both performed at higher levels.

I'm happy with that as a neutral and in hindsight Gatlands insight has to be respected. Big calls take big b&^*ls.

I realise all of that, the point I am making though is that if certain posters are going to dismiss my comments simply because I support Ireland and am a fan of BOD, then they aren't worth debating with. It does not mean I have an "anti-Gatland agenda" and to be honest it is very frustrating to be accused of that. There is nothing worth discussing with these people.

Yep the whole argument got clouded when the nationalitys became more the issue than the issue itself, which was about what the coach thought was best for the side overall. For those to say that the side 'would have won if BOD were picked' are also missing the point.

Its perhaps no coincidence that one supposedly 'drastic' decision- one of the most difficult a coach has had to make, resulted in such a drastic difference in the final test. Those are simply the facts.

And if Gatland has issues with playing a different style of game here don't worry, an anti- Gatland campaign will spawn a new life of its own here anyway. But for now, he deserves his place somewhere high up on the list of maybes.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

ebop wrote:So, was North's solo try in the lions series one dimensional? I'd say that was a moment of brilliance and had a bit of x-factor. Also, having had gatlandball explained to me, I actually think it's a pretty good game plan. Add a bit of x-factor mixed with forward grunt, and viola, that's a world beating team right there. One dimensional rugby to me is kicking for the corners all day, mauling, foward hit ups, yawn. That's something to complain about.

George North is just world class though, and of course has that individual flair.  He is the perfect example of a player with both power and skill of the highest level.  Scoring individual tries doesn't really answer the question about the overall game plan of the team though.

Again, "Gatlandball" as it has been described recently is indeed a pretty good game plan because he has dominated NH rugby.  The teams in the NH haven't the power to deal with it, and tend to get worn down.  However, what you describe as "x-factor mixed with forward grunt" isn't what I am seeing.  What I see is a team that utilises solidity rather than attacking flair at 10 and 15, with big direct runners in midfield who can punch holes in the opposition defence.  The support play is good.  A mobile back row and pack is used to generate quick ball (though Phillips isn't exactly the best guy to turn to for quick service).  It has been a winning formula in the 6 nations.  Not so much against the SH teams who can deal with it better.

I don't even think George North is utilised enough with Wales, his try scoring record should be even higher than it is.

Does explain why Wales stand out in not beating the SH sides. Sounds like theyre kind of a Bok B side so to speak.
With North and also Halfpenny (excluding his 3rd test performance which was masterclass) and Cuthbert are all under utilised.Gone are the days when wingers wait out wide for the ball. They need to utilise their pace in the midfield and go looking for more work. North particularly has a low work rate- the only time I saw him in the first test was they try itself.

ebop wrote:So, was North's solo try in the lions series one dimensional? I'd say that was a moment of brilliance and had a bit of x-factor. Also, having had gatlandball explained to me, I actually think it's a pretty good game plan. Add a bit of x-factor mixed with forward grunt, and viola, that's a world beating team right there. One dimensional rugby to me is kicking for the corners all day, mauling, foward hit ups, yawn. That's something to complain about.

One dimensional means doing the same thing every time with little or no variation,it can be from forward dominated pick and goes to shipping it out to the backs every time and anything in between.It doesn't represent any particular style of play.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:To add to that, the fact that NZ do not have the biggest players in the world suggests that if they are sucked into the power game, they won't be half as effective.  The likes of Robbie Fruean would need to be looked at to provide big running options in midfield.  The dynamics of the NZ back line would be totally different surely.

The same thing goes for the likes of Australia and France.  They just aren't suited to this sort of rugby.

Pre-'08 you could have said the exact same thing about Wales. Especially in the forwards, Wales lacked the size and power to take on the top 5 in the world, and the first thing Gatland did was to instil some beef up front, and then again in the backline.

I think you're absolutely wrong when you say NZ, France or Australia do not have these kind of players available to them. Wales could be playing with a midfield of Beck and Hook, with Eli Walker on the wing, and an actual 9. Gatland took the likes of Roberts, a fairly decent but average wing/full back, and turned him into one of the most effective international 12s. He saw the merit of Cuthbert, plucked from obscurity, and for all his failings, his finishing with ball in hand is truly stunning on the biggest stage. Phillips wasn't first choice before Gatland arrived. Martyn Williams was our openside. Whilst the likes of George North and Jon Davies are products of a more professional youth set up (arguably triggered by Henry and Hanson), there's also been an active promotion and loyalty to the bigger boys (Czekaj, Tom James, Andy Powell merely some of those given many opportunities despite their obvious limitations).

The point I'm trying to make is that Gatland could certainly find players to "suit" his style of rugby; Wales, with one of the smallest professional player bases of the 'traditional' rugby nations, comprised of traditionally small but skillful players, is one of the countries, at least on the face of it, you might consider least suited to Gatland's tactics. France could certainly find another couple of Basterauds to put in the backline, and I have little doubt that Australia or NZ, especially with their ties to the pacific islands, couldn't find some equally beastly backs to compare with North and Roberts.

Edit: In fact I'd go as far to say that France are already mimicking, intentionally or not, Wales's/Gatland's favouring of bigger players. Their second rows are the biggest I've ever seen. Their issue is that they have little or no unity, and Saint Andre is dealing with the politics of French selection, which means replace 10 players every time you lose. We saw this in Paris earlier this year. It was a dreadful game, and one in which Wales finished the stronger and showed greater unity, especially in defence, to win the match.

Teams have done and always will play to their strengths and what players are comfortable with.

If the so called 'Gatlandball' brings us more success then I am all for it, England won in the WC in 03 by playing to their strenghts and well done to them it wasn't pretty at times but it had the desired affect and I doubt you will find and English fan who complained.

In fact if England had stuck to their strengths in 91 then they most likely would have beaten the Aussies then to but in the final they seemed to change their style to appease the critics and it was a style the players at the time weren't comfortable with.

Miaow - what I said was that these teams aren't suited to this sort of rugby, I'm sure they do have these players available to them though. Fruean for example could be the replacement to Conrad Smith potentially, as a big bruising midfielder, but there are more skilful and better footballers like Ben Smith around.

Gatland could find the players to suit his game plan, but the point I have been trying to make is would that actually be beneficial to NZ? To change the players and the style of rugby? Or would he be able to adjust to the new game plan?

Maybe it's the other way around Rory, the NZRU simply wouldn't hire a coach that played with such a gameplan. If he went to the job interview and said, I'm going to play like wales, he wouldn't get it. We have coaches in NZ currently that could do more with the resources. So I think you're being a little blinkered in what Gatland would do and thinking that he'd just transpose this so-called welsh game plan of his. I am surprised that you even think that this would be the case to be honest.

I think it worth mentioning at this point that the so-called Gatlandball approach has only been a prominent feature of Wales' gameplan for the past year and a half or so. That's not to say there weren't elements of it beforehand, namely Phillips consistently being Gatland's first choice and Roberts' conversion from winger to centre but only with the emergence of North, Cuthbert and the back row around the time of the WC was it been embraced more generally. Remember there was a time when Gatland's back three consisted of Byrne, Shane Williams and Mark Jones, backed up by the centre pairing of Henson and Shanklin. True that Gatland's current selection policies indicate he currently favours powerhouse combos but my point is it hasn't been that way throughout his tenure.

For the current approach to excel a good distributor and organiser is required at standoff. This is why Wales looked far more dangerous in NZ when Priestland was in the form of his life. In fact during that period we lost only one with Rhys P starting and that by one point against the world champs of the time. It's an area that has declined since by a huge margin, hence perhaps one of the reasons why we have since looked less threatening and more blunt. If Gatland was at the helm for NZ odds are he'd have a deeper talent pool in that area to draw from.