Jonathan Davies victim of Twitter abuse and threats after displacing Brian O'Driscoll in Lions side for deciding Test

by munkian Thu 22 Aug 2013, 9:37 am

First topic message reminder :

Jonathan Davies victim of Twitter abuse and threats after displacing Brian O'Driscoll in Lions side for deciding Test

The Scarlets and Wales centre was one of the standout performers during the 2-1 series success over the Wallabies and was given the vote to play alongside countryman Jamie Roberts in Sydney.

Coach Warren Gatland’s selection, which included nine Welshmen in the starting XV, gave rise to some serious criticism from the likes of Lions’ great Willie John McBride and former Ireland and Lions hooker Keith Wood.

The opposition to Gatland’s decision – particularly in relation to O’Driscoll – became further inflamed on Twitter, where a handful of supporters posted threatening messages towards Davies.

Davies said: “There was a lot of stuff on Twitter but I tried not to take too much notice of it. I had some good advice from players like Mike Phillips who just told me to ignore it.

“I was just grateful to have been given the opportunity to win the series. I did get a bit of verbal abuse and people wanting to break my legs and stuff. But I didn’t really care.

“I did feel like public enemy number one and there was a lot of pressure. But I felt like I had performed well under pressure.

“It was a great experience and I enjoyed every minute. Brian congratulated me afterwards and said well done. We were tight as a squad and Brian will be glad to have it on his CV.”

Davies will now turn his attention to helping the Scarlets re-establish themselves as a force in European club rugby.

“I have had six weeks offf and I’ve enjoyed it. I’ve been away on holiday and can’t wait to get back playing.”

Pretty disgusting stuff, rugby becoming more popular is attracting football like behaviour

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 11:21 am

Taylorman wrote:I think the endless raising of the BOD thing is a perfect example of why the Lions doesnt work at a fans level. At a team level it seems to, BOD showing a lot of style and grace in the decision, even if he thought it was wrong. Then he got out and supported the team.

For the fans, it was more because he was Irish that the comments, FB and twitter comments have prolonged this. And the fact that JD and Gatland arent.

If an Irish coach had selected an Irish centre in an Ireland side close to BODs ability in other respects ahead of BOD simply because he thought he would contribute more, this vitriole wouldnt be of this magnitude especially if the result was significantly as large as the third test one was.

In short time it would be accepted, even forgiven and yes, possibly even celebrated as a fantastic tactical move.

But because the side wasnt Irish, nor the coach nor the replacement, Irish fans feel THEY have been beaten, that they are not part of this win, when they actually are, in every single respect as part of the Lions setup.

For a coach to make a selection, complete a resounding and emphatic victory, yet be subject to such vitriole is proof that the Lions concept is flawed.

Well done folks...

Why do you insist in branding Irish fans based on some comments you may have seen on social media? What about the comments from people that arent Irish that came out in support of Drico? Do they not count?

This fiasco has barely been mentioned in the Irish media since the tour ended and this article is written by a Welsh poster describing comments by a Welsh player printed in a British newspaper yet the "Irish" are prolonging it all. Why do you insist in posting such nonsense Taylorman?

by Guest Mon 26 Aug 2013, 11:27 am

To be fair, on a lot of websites, not just this one, some Irish fans have been completely unbearable during the tour. I've never seen such a sense of entitlement given to a player.

But oh well, history will remember the result.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 11:47 am

Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.

by Guest Mon 26 Aug 2013, 12:01 pm

But none of the other nations have been so vocal and obnoxious over the exclusion of 1 player.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 12:17 pm

IronMike wrote:But none of the other nations have been so vocal and obnoxious over the exclusion of 1 player.

The Scots were very vocal about the lack of Scots in general and fair enough.

Some English were disapointed at no Robshaw and there was a lot of discussion re Wilko too. England dont have any really high profile players right now.

The Welsh dont have anything to complain about because there were lots of Welsh.

It was obvious that dropping Drico was going to be a talking point not just in Ireland because he is one of the best players to come out of rugby in 20 years. Get over it.

As mentioned it has barely been discussed in any rugby articles I have read in Ireland or on any rugby shows. Seems to be getting discussed more in Wales than anywhere. Why are you still so bitter about it?

by Sin é Mon 26 Aug 2013, 1:00 pm

miaow wrote:
I also believe that Jon Davies is no more 'his' player than BOD was when in the role as Lions coach. If Gatland was picking his boys, why was Cuthbert dropped after scoring a wonderful try in the first Test, for Bowe, who had done little to prove his form or fitness? Again, the only issue amongst Irish fans is their talisman is seen to be equal to the players he is up against, and perhaps there's an element of reluctance, as you've displayed, to accept his career is nearly over.

Lots of players didn't get a chance who should have .... it just happens that BOD was the most obvious one for everyone outside of Wales to get annoyed about.

Sean O'Brien should have got more of a chance than he did, but we didn't moan about it because Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.

Manu Tualagi didn't get a chance. The most promising centre partnership was BOD & Manu - but as soon as Gatland saw that happening, he didn't put them together again.

Irish fans were not moaning and groaning about Jamie Heaslip being dropped for no good reason - surprising that he didn't want to reunite the Leinster & Ireland backrow.

Bowe shouldn't have started because of his injury. Bowe probably got the call becuase of his experience of playing in Wales and he could be the token Irish back.

Now, can anyone tell me why Mike Phillips started? Murray is just a better scrumhalf than him (and just as physical). Apart from Phillips & Young's poor form, his partnership with Sexton should have made it a no brainer.

Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

by BigTrevsbigmac Mon 26 Aug 2013, 1:30 pm

Sin é wrote:
miaow wrote:
I also believe that Jon Davies is no more 'his' player than BOD was when in the role as Lions coach. If Gatland was picking his boys, why was Cuthbert dropped after scoring a wonderful try in the first Test, for Bowe, who had done little to prove his form or fitness? Again, the only issue amongst Irish fans is their talisman is seen to be equal to the players he is up against, and perhaps there's an element of reluctance, as you've displayed, to accept his career is nearly over.
Lots of players didn't get a chance who should have .... it just happens that BOD was the most obvious one for everyone outside of Wales to get annoyed about.

Sean O'Brien should have got more of a chance than he did, but we didn't moan about it because Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.

Manu Tualagi didn't get a chance. The most promising centre partnership was BOD & Manu - but as soon as Gatland saw that happening, he didn't put them together again.

Irish fans were not moaning and groaning about Jamie Heaslip being dropped for no good reason - surprising that he didn't want to reunite the Leinster & Ireland backrow.

Bowe shouldn't have started because of his injury. Bowe probably got the call becuase of his experience of playing in Wales and he could be the token Irish back.

Now, can anyone tell me why Mike Phillips started? Murray is just a better scrumhalf than him (and just as physical). Apart from Phillips & Young's poor form, his partnership with Sexton should have made it a no brainer.

Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

+1
Although the most significant change that Gatland made and Gats to his credit praised him after the game was Corbs starting at LH. I believe the Lions would have won the game whoever he chose in the centres. But the selection of Phillips was just baffling.

by **rodders** Mon 26 Aug 2013, 1:35 pm

Sin é wrote:
miaow wrote:
I also believe that Jon Davies is no more 'his' player than BOD was when in the role as Lions coach. If Gatland was picking his boys, why was Cuthbert dropped after scoring a wonderful try in the first Test, for Bowe, who had done little to prove his form or fitness? Again, the only issue amongst Irish fans is their talisman is seen to be equal to the players he is up against, and perhaps there's an element of reluctance, as you've displayed, to accept his career is nearly over.
Lots of players didn't get a chance who should have .... it just happens that BOD was the most obvious one for everyone outside of Wales to get annoyed about.

Sean O'Brien should have got more of a chance than he did, but we didn't moan about it because Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.

Manu Tualagi didn't get a chance. The most promising centre partnership was BOD & Manu - but as soon as Gatland saw that happening, he didn't put them together again.

Irish fans were not moaning and groaning about Jamie Heaslip being dropped for no good reason - surprising that he didn't want to reunite the Leinster & Ireland backrow.

Bowe shouldn't have started because of his injury. Bowe probably got the call becuase of his experience of playing in Wales and he could be the token Irish back.

Now, can anyone tell me why Mike Phillips started? Murray is just a better scrumhalf than him (and just as physical). Apart from Phillips & Young's poor form, his partnership with Sexton should have made it a no brainer.

Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

Wow I never thought I'd end up giving Sin e a plus one but here goes...

+1 Shocked

by Casartelli Mon 26 Aug 2013, 1:40 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.

Is it 4 or 5? It's most confusing. This is one of the reasons that the Lions 'Power of 4' anthem never caught on.

by Submachine Mon 26 Aug 2013, 1:46 pm

Australia?

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 1:47 pm

Sin é wrote:Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

I suspect the BBC asked Keith Wood the questions because there was clearly a story to be had, and as a media agency, that's their job.

Keith Wood expressed an opinion in a very strong manner, stating that the omission of BOD was a huge mistake. The Lions went on to win handsomely. Keith Wood then made a chump of himself with some garbled nonsense about there not being enough flair, it not feeling like the Lions really won, the Lions not being a proper mix of the four countries, but making clear he had no issue with the number of Welsh players (if you can reconcile his third and final point you're doing well).

Probably my favourite hooker of all time, but someone please take the microphone off him!

I don't think JD2s point about BOD's CV was nonsense at all. After the vast swathes of outrage at the now infamour "spear" in 2005, abd how close he came in 2009, and given that he's won the Rabo and HC with Leinster, I don't think it's outwith the realms of reason to suggest that BOD would rather like to have a Lions series win on his CV, even if he doesn't play in the deciding Test match. He still played a role in both the 1st and 2nd Tests, and if you believe some, his performance in the 2nd Test was nothing short of a miracle.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 2:02 pm

Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.
Is it 4 or 5? It's most confusing. This is one of the reasons that the Lions 'Power of 4' anthem never caught on.

It is made up of 4 unions but 5 countries, WAL, NI, Sco, ENG and ROI. Or you could argue just 2 countries ROI and UK.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 2:04 pm

FES I dont think anyone thinks BODs 2nd test was miraculous. Most people who argued for his inclusion simply thought it was marginally better than Davies.

by Sin é Mon 26 Aug 2013, 2:04 pm

FunnyExiledScot:

Keith Wood is a straight talker and he said what he thinks. Before the 3rd Test, he was also critical of Gatland's management:

"It's entirely built around power," he said.

"A huge amount rests on Jamie Roberts' shoulders and they were crying out for him in the last two weeks. I just think Brian's subtlety off him would have worked.

"You can say (Gatland is) picking on form but he's picked an unbelievably direct team with very little guile in it, specifically to play this game plan.

"You're asking them to pulverise a team. The Lions are at the end of virtually 12 months of the season, all these guys are pretty tired and you're looking for the absolute maximum for it to work for them.

"It can happen, I want it to happen, I'm just a little bit disappointed at the manner in which I think the tradition has been treated.

"The Lions is about getting the best quality out of the players of these islands, not having an intransigent game plan. We're not seeing that spark that we're used to seeing from the Lions because it's a game plan doesn't suit an awful lot of the players.

"It suits the Welsh players, that's why there's 10 of them playing. We're not seeing the blend of four teams. That's what the Lions is about, that's what makes it so phenomenal."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/keith-wood-odriscoll-axing-a-terrible-mistake-29392142.html

So, do not suggest that he was making it up as he went along.

Players like Brian O'Driscoll would not feel they earned the win because he was dropped. Paul O'Connell (in that interview) spoke as if he hadn't won a series - it was 'someone' else had. The intereviewer had to remind him that he had won a series (and POC would have been a starter for the 3 tests except for injury).

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 2:18 pm

I was talking about his comments after the series.

He said: "I was glad to see the Lions win at the end, absolutely.

"And I thought it could have been a bit more exciting.

"I thought there could have been a bit more flair, a bit more of a blend of the four teams.

"Someone asked me earlier on: 'Was he [Gatland] vindicated?' I think [he was] vindicated to the point that Lions won a Test series.

"But in some way I think the Lions lost a little bit in the summer because I didn't think it was a blend of four teams."

Wood - who played for Gatland when the New Zealander coached Ireland between 1998 and 2001 - says he has "not even vaguely" criticised the selection of 15 Welsh players for the tour.

"I've never said there were too many Welsh players on the team. That wasn't the point," said Wood.

So, worth getting this straight:

1. The Lions lost a bit because they weren't a "blend of the four teams".

Obviously we are to ignore the contributions of Corbisiero, POC, Parling, SOB, Youngs, BOD and Bowe, plus the small fact that Sexton played all three tests at the not insignificant position of 10....and before you get smart, I don't think Keith Wood gives a stuff about Scottish representation.

2. Despite the whole "blend of 4 teams" thingy, he never said there were too many Welsh players in the team. No, of course not. He was talking about something else, obviously.

Erm

3. He thinks the Lions "lost alittle bit". I suppose that's right, other than the fact they won.

4. There could have been "a bit more flair". This I genuinely agree with. I do think the Lions could have been more positive at times, particularly the 2nd Test. But close Test series are always tight. Look at the Lions in 1997 in that 2nd Test. I don't recall much flair. Yet the Lions in 2001 played wonderful rugby.....and lost.

Keith Wood = great player + bad pundit.

by Casartelli Mon 26 Aug 2013, 2:20 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.
Is it 4 or 5? It's most confusing. This is one of the reasons that the Lions 'Power of 4' anthem never caught on.
It is made up of 4 unions but 5 countries, WAL, NI, Sco, ENG and ROI. Or you could argue just 2 countries ROI and UK.

Geopolitically complex, innit?

Are NI and ROI considered 'equal' by IRFU? Or do IRFU 'allow' NI some scraps from their selection table, so to speak?

by Sin é Mon 26 Aug 2013, 2:37 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:I was talking about his comments after the series.

He said: "I was glad to see the Lions win at the end, absolutely.

"And I thought it could have been a bit more exciting.

"I thought there could have been a bit more flair, a bit more of a blend of the four teams.

"Someone asked me earlier on: 'Was he [Gatland] vindicated?' I think [he was] vindicated to the point that Lions won a Test series.

"But in some way I think the Lions lost a little bit in the summer because I didn't think it was a blend of four teams."

Wood - who played for Gatland when the New Zealander coached Ireland between 1998 and 2001 - says he has "not even vaguely" criticised the selection of 15 Welsh players for the tour.

"I've never said there were too many Welsh players on the team. That wasn't the point," said Wood.

So, worth getting this straight:

1. The Lions lost a bit because they weren't a "blend of the four teams".

Obviously we are to ignore the contributions of Corbisiero, POC, Parling, SOB, Youngs, BOD and Bowe, plus the small fact that Sexton played all three tests at the not insignificant position of 10....and before you get smart, I don't think Keith Wood gives a stuff about Scottish representation.

2. Despite the whole "blend of 4 teams" thingy, he never said there were too many Welsh players in the team. No, of course not. He was talking about something else, obviously.

3. He thinks the Lions "lost alittle bit". I suppose that's right, other than the fact they won.

4. There could have been "a bit more flair". This I genuinely agree with. I do think the Lions could have been more positive at times, particularly the 2nd Test. But close Test series are always tight. Look at the Lions in 1997 in that 2nd Test. I don't recall much flair. Yet the Lions in 2001 played wonderful rugby.....and lost.

Keith Wood = great player + bad pundit.

Hang on - this is what you posted:

Keith Wood expressed an opinion in a very strong manner, stating that the omission of BOD was a huge mistake. The Lions went on to win handsomely. Keith Wood then made a chump of himself with some garbled nonsense about there not being enough flair, it not feeling like the Lions really won, the Lions not being a proper mix of the four countries, but making clear he had no issue with the number of Welsh players (if you can reconcile his third and final point you're doing well).

Whether you like it or not, Keith Wood has been consistent in his criticism and wasn't making it up as he went along which is what you are claiming.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:04 pm

No, the fact that Keith Wood has been consistent in being wrong isn't my point at all.

He gave a strong opinion prior to the 3rd Test. I personally think the manner in which he gave the opinion was wrong and over the top, but his opinion was given nonetheless.

What staggers me isn't that he held that view, he is a partisan pundit (in the same way as Andy Nicol is for Scottish players) with little regard for objectivity, but more his garbled response to the BBC questionning after the 3rd Test (i.e. the section I quoted).

He simply repeats what he said previously, with no regard as to what actually happened in the 3rd Test. Did the Lions actually show a lack of flair in that 3rd Test? Did the gameplan look wrong? Did the 4/5 (whatever) nations not "blend" that day?

I made the big mistake of questionning why Corbisiero was selected ahead of Ryan Grant. I felt Grant was an equal scrummager, better in the loose and on better form given Corbisiero's injury record last season. Now, were the BBC to interview me now, obviously I would be stupid to merely repeat my earlier arguments. I'd look rather silly.

A good pundit can adapt to what he sees, and crucially admit mistakes. Keith Wood was clearly upset that an Irish icon, and I presume a player he knows fairly well, was on the tough end of a close selection call. That it then lead to nonsense about the "traditions" of the Lions being betrayed was simply rank puditry, and worse still, he's unable to admit that he called it wrong and overreacted.

by **rodders** Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:13 pm

So you can only criticise selection and tactics when a team loses?

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:19 pm

Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.
Is it 4 or 5? It's most confusing. This is one of the reasons that the Lions 'Power of 4' anthem never caught on.
It is made up of 4 unions but 5 countries, WAL, NI, Sco, ENG and ROI. Or you could argue just 2 countries ROI and UK.
Geopolitically complex, innit?

Are NI and ROI considered 'equal' by IRFU? Or do IRFU 'allow' NI some scraps from their selection table, so to speak?

It sure is. I like to think NI are treated fairly. Others might disagree. Probably not a discussion for this thread. To make things even more compliacted most NI players play for Ulster yet not all of Ulster is in NI. Tommy Bowe for example is from Monaghan which is in Ulster but is part of ROI.

by Sin é Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:20 pm

Woody's point before the 3rd Test was that Roberts was needed because the gameplan chosen by Gatland only suited his mostly his Welsh players.

Now Manu Tualagi could have fitted into that gameplan, but didn't get a look in.

By the way, the tries only started coming when Phillips was taken off in the 3rd Test (and Sexton & Murray seemed to shake off the Gatland shackles).

Why do you think Phillips deserved to start over Murray?

Why did Davies deserve to start over Manu?

Woody's opinion is that Gatland didn't try to blend the different players which is completely against the Lions ethos (and something that both Henry & Woodward have been criticised for).

by Sin é Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:25 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.
Is it 4 or 5? It's most confusing. This is one of the reasons that the Lions 'Power of 4' anthem never caught on.
It is made up of 4 unions but 5 countries, WAL, NI, Sco, ENG and ROI. Or you could argue just 2 countries ROI and UK.
Geopolitically complex, innit?

Are NI and ROI considered 'equal' by IRFU? Or do IRFU 'allow' NI some scraps from their selection table, so to speak?
It sure is. I like to think NI are treated fairly. Others might disagree. Probably not a discussion for this thread. To make things even more compliacted most NI players play for Ulster yet not all of Ulster is in NI. Tommy Bowe for example is from Monaghan which is in Ulster but is part of ROI.

Ulster get the same funding as Leinster & Munster and all are treated better than Connacht (which is in ROI). Ulster have a better class of foreign players (Pienaar, Afoa & Muller) than either Leinster or Munster, so I would think that they should have no complaints in how they are treated by the ROI based IRFU.

by Guest Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:31 pm

Sin é wrote:Lots of players didn't get a chance who should have .... it just happens that BOD was the most obvious one for everyone outside of Wales to get annoyed about.

Why? Because of what he's done in the past? His omission was surprising given his prestige, but to be annoyed about it? Just shows you're far too emotive about this, how his non-selection doesn't fit the script. If you genuinely wanted the Lions to win the Tour, if you actually put aside your national bias, you wouldn't have been annoyed about him not being selected, because the Lions won emphatically. But you clearly don't care about the Lions.

Sin é wrote:Sean O'Brien should have got more of a chance than he did, but we didn't moan about it because Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.

Utter conjecture. Warburton was injured, and once up to speed, got better and better, peaking in the second Test before going off injured. O'Brien had a great Tour, but in no way can you categorically state he was the better player. Like Croft and Lydiate, they brought different things to the game.

Sin é wrote:Manu Tualagi didn't get a chance. The most promising centre partnership was BOD & Manu - but as soon as Gatland saw that happening, he didn't put them together again.

Again, Tuilagi was injured, or have you forgotten that. I'd also presume Gatland, and Howley, saw a lot more of the combination in training sessions. You're really clutching at straws trying to pass this off as some grand plan by Gatland. Roberts was clearly integral to the gameplan, and proved his worth in the final Test. Whatever his flaws, he is so unbelievably effective at what he does. Also, Jon Davies was arguably the best performing centre in the games before the Tests. And you can't simply state that was due to the poor opposition; it's the same opposition you're basing your preferred centre partnership on.

Sin é wrote:Irish fans were not moaning and groaning about Jamie Heaslip being dropped for no good reason - surprising that he didn't want to reunite the Leinster & Ireland backrow.

Faletau had performed no worse on the Tour, and after Heaslip starting two Tests and not asserting himself, Faletau was selected. I fail to see how there was 'no good reason' for his dropping. Again, Gatland was the coach, can do what he wants to win, and he did. Get over it.

Sin é wrote:Bowe shouldn't have started because of his injury. Bowe probably got the call becuase of his experience of playing in Wales and he could be the token Irish back.

You're an idiot.

Sin é wrote:Now, can anyone tell me why Mike Phillips started? Murray is just a better scrumhalf than him (and just as physical). Apart from Phillips & Young's poor form, his partnership with Sexton should have made it a no brainer.

Probably because when Phillips is on form, he's very difficult to play against, and is best suited to the gameplan Gatland wants to play (something you clearly don't understand). Murray is clearly far less physical than Phillips, no scrum half comes near, and it's total conjecture again, which you've stated as fact, that he is a better scrum half. Let's be fair, Murray and Sexton have hardly proved to be a solid pairing for Ireland. And as mentioned earlier, it's a lot easier to come off the bench and look good.

Sin é wrote:Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Ignoring the massive xenophobic chip on your shoulder there, he was probably asked because he did his best to undermine the spirit and notion of the borderless Lions, and was proved emphatically wrong as the Lions, with Jonathan Davies and the (apparently too many) 'Welshmen' selected with the other starting Lions, tore the Australians apart. Blind pride and ignorance isn't an enviable trait. He's also employed by the BBC as a television pundit.

Sin é wrote:Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

There is a direct quote earlier in this thread from BOD stating the result is more important than his personal involvement. He stated he would rather have a Lions win without him in the side than a loss with him in it. You clearly would have preferred the latter, and revelled in the 'Welsh/British' Lions' loss. Grow up. Davies was stating, not complaining, he said he was simply ignoring it, that he had received threats on Twitter, something you've attempted to disparage as a medium for ten year olds before needlessly stating BOD has 400k followers on (the most simple of searches would reveal he has just over 350,000). Sin, you truly are an embarrassment.

by Casartelli Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:32 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.
Is it 4 or 5? It's most confusing. This is one of the reasons that the Lions 'Power of 4' anthem never caught on.
It is made up of 4 unions but 5 countries, WAL, NI, Sco, ENG and ROI. Or you could argue just 2 countries ROI and UK.
Geopolitically complex, innit?

Are NI and ROI considered 'equal' by IRFU? Or do IRFU 'allow' NI some scraps from their selection table, so to speak?
It sure is. I like to think NI are treated fairly. Others might disagree. Probably not a discussion for this thread.......

Probably. I made a futile attempt to take this off on a far more interesting tangent than the worn out "BOD is an iconic legend" v "BOD is over the hill" debate. I suspect that those opposing factions will never find common ground.

by **rodders** Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:40 pm

Sin é wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.
Is it 4 or 5? It's most confusing. This is one of the reasons that the Lions 'Power of 4' anthem never caught on.
It is made up of 4 unions but 5 countries, WAL, NI, Sco, ENG and ROI. Or you could argue just 2 countries ROI and UK.
Geopolitically complex, innit?

Are NI and ROI considered 'equal' by IRFU? Or do IRFU 'allow' NI some scraps from their selection table, so to speak?
It sure is. I like to think NI are treated fairly. Others might disagree. Probably not a discussion for this thread. To make things even more compliacted most NI players play for Ulster yet not all of Ulster is in NI. Tommy Bowe for example is from Monaghan which is in Ulster but is part of ROI.
Ulster get the same funding as Leinster & Munster and all are treated better than Connacht (which is in ROI). Ulster have a better class of foreign players (Pienaar, Afoa & Muller) than either Leinster or Munster, so I would think that they should have no complaints in how they are treated by the ROI based IRFU.

Well actually now that you mention it ..... Whistle

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:40 pm

rodders wrote:So you can only criticise selection and tactics when a team loses?

Not at all.

But if you're going to criticise a team for having no flair and failing to gel, and then that team produces a strong attacking performance, record victory and includes huge performances from individuals hailing from three of the four constituent nations, perhaps have the good grace not to follow that up with a re-hash of "I was right. No flair. Lions tradition damaged. No blend of nations".

As I've tried to make clear, and I'll try again, I'm not so much criticising Wood for his pre-3rd Test view regarding BOD, close call and could have gone either way, but rather:

(1) his attack on Gatland regarding Lions "traditions"; and

(2) his inability to understand or realise that several of his opinions had been demonstrated to be incorrect.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:41 pm

Sin é wrote:Ulster get the same funding as Leinster & Munster and all are treated better than Connacht (which is in ROI). Ulster have a better class of foreign players (Pienaar, Afoa & Muller) than either Leinster or Munster, so I would think that they should have no complaints in how they are treated by the ROI based IRFU.

In interpreted the question in terms of NI players getting selected for Ireland rather than provincial support.

by Taylorman Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:42 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
jimmyinthewell68 wrote:
Taylorman wrote:Sin wants the entire rugby world to go down on their knees and beg BOD forgiveness for unnecessarily ruining an otherwise fantastic career and for Gatland to take 1000 lashes for his criminal act in selecting a winning side.

Thats from what I've read might go close to what Sin is after...though he probably wants more.
i think they should set the whole match up again with Bod playing and is allowed to score the winning try . jd2 must clean is boots after
good point...I'll start on that one then. Make sure they bring the trophy back though just in case the result changes...
Taylorman, why are you so bitter when it comes to O'Driscoll? Nobody is looking for an apology, thats just ridiculous.

I'm not bitter when it comes to ODriscoll. I'm bitter, if thats the word, about the sheer over-reaction to his dropping, and the complete lack of respect given to a selection that was proven a successful one and possibly a masterstroke that many in the NH would not have had the guts to make- thats now obvious. I have nothing against O'Driscoll, I rate him one of the best players in the last 20 or so years to come out of the NH.

But this uncessant on and on and on and on about his dropping is THE single most ridiculous reaction to any I have ever seen in my time watching the game. not just for the lack of respect for the selection but the sheer number that have put a black mark of doom over the entire tour. To choose en masse to not enjoy the win as a composite side but instead embark on a vendetta of commentary using all available media is frankly an embarrassment to the lions concept- they cant even win when they do win.

And thank heavens they did win...who knows what would have happened if theyd lost, if this is the treatment they get for winning.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:46 pm

Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Casartelli wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Boowho Iron Mike, I'm sure there have been dopes from all 5 countries during the tour.
Is it 4 or 5? It's most confusing. This is one of the reasons that the Lions 'Power of 4' anthem never caught on.
It is made up of 4 unions but 5 countries, WAL, NI, Sco, ENG and ROI. Or you could argue just 2 countries ROI and UK.
Geopolitically complex, innit?

Are NI and ROI considered 'equal' by IRFU? Or do IRFU 'allow' NI some scraps from their selection table, so to speak?
It sure is. I like to think NI are treated fairly. Others might disagree. Probably not a discussion for this thread.......
Probably. I made a futile attempt to take this off on a far more interesting tangent than the worn out "BOD is an iconic legend" v "BOD is over the hill" debate. I suspect that those opposing factions will never find common ground.

Yes that debate is very boring alright. I for one am delighted NI form part of the Irish team. Was out with a friend from Ulster (Tyrone) last night. He is a big guy and a former Euro karate champion. He is friends with Stephen Ferris and showed me a photo of the two of them at a party last weekend. Ferris standing beside him makes him look like a complete weed. Just reminded me how good it is to have such good players like Ferris available for selection for Ireland.

by Guest Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:49 pm

rodders wrote:So you can only criticise selection and tactics when a team loses?

Absolutely not, you can criticise the Lions in many ways because, if we're honest, they did make hard work of a series that was there to be won 3-0. But it's a lot easier not to dwell on the details when you've won the series. It seems to me that a handful of Irish posters don't feel like part of the Lions or that they can celebrate the victory because there weren't enough Irish in the side. If you feel disenfranchised to the point of picking one, let's be honest, now irrelevant, selection issue to focus on to cry over, you weren't really supporting the 'tour'.

Welsh fans have been highly critical of Gatland, and the selection of Phillips during the last 4 years has been a particularly hot topic. He can string games together where he is utterly pedestrian, yet when on form he is very effective. Whilst the 2012 and '13 6N victories were more grinding victories, and there was little in the shape of traditional Welsh flair, fans can be simultaneously critical and accepting that it brought success. I'd suggest a similar attitude should be taken here. Admittedly there isn't the same notion of 'progression' you get from a national side being successful, but because it's a 'one off' event, so to speak, that doesn't mean it should be flooded with sentiment and no longer viewed through the lens of a professional sport.

GunsGerms wrote:FES I dont think anyone thinks BODs 2nd test was miraculous. Most people who argued for his inclusion simply thought it was marginally better than Davies.

I'm afraid that's not true. If the opposition to Davies's selection was down to a 'marginally better' performance by BOD, it would not have merited the strength of response, which has been on the verge of vitriolic.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

"But in some way I think the Lions lost a little bit in the summer because I didn't think it was a blend of four teams."

1. The Lions lost a bit because they weren't a "blend of the four teams".

Obviously we are to ignore the contributions of Corbisiero, POC, Parling, SOB, Youngs, BOD and Bowe, plus the small fact that Sexton played all three tests at the not insignificant position of 10....and before you get smart, I don't think Keith Wood gives a stuff about Scottish representation.

What could have been a wholly reasonable assessment (the Lions did show inflexibility from the gameplan, but don't blame Gatland for that, he was selected because of his success with Wales, he's only going to stick what he knows to to get the win, which he did- blame the men who chose Gatland, they must have known what they were appointing) was utterly undermined by the 'blend' statement, and I agree it has little to do with the lack of Scots in the side.

by **rodders** Mon 26 Aug 2013, 3:57 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
rodders wrote:So you can only criticise selection and tactics when a team loses?
Not at all.

But if you're going to criticise a team for having no flair and failing to gel, and then that team produces a strong attacking performance, record victory and includes huge performances from individuals hailing from three of the four constituent nations, perhaps have the good grace not to follow that up with a re-hash of "I was right. No flair. Lions tradition damaged. No blend of nations".

As I've tried to make clear, and I'll try again, I'm not so much criticising Wood for his pre-3rd Test view regarding BOD, close call and could have gone either way, but rather:

(1) his attack on Gatland regarding Lions "traditions"; and

(2) his inability to understand or realise that several of his opinions had been demonstrated to be incorrect.

I can't speak for Wood (who's a terrible pundit imo) but there seems to be an attitude that because the Lions won the series that Gatland is above criticism and that everyone unhappy about the selection(s) has to bow down and eat humble pie in all Lions debates henceforth.

I'm not happy with the way Gatland conducted himself - the selections, man management, in the media. The fact that the series was won doesn't change that.

The winning might be the main thing in a 'results based sport' but it isn't the only thing by which you judge a team, coach, player.

The selection of Warburton as captain and dropping BOD for Davies were poor calls imo (amongst others) and the result doesn't change that for me. It was a poor tour only marginally better than 01 and 05 - the marginal difference being the result of the test series.

It is not contradictory to say that Gatland and the boys who played deserve credit for the result but also say that the tour and aspects of it could have been handled better.

by Guest Mon 26 Aug 2013, 4:01 pm

Taylorman wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
jimmyinthewell68 wrote:
Taylorman wrote:Sin wants the entire rugby world to go down on their knees and beg BOD forgiveness for unnecessarily ruining an otherwise fantastic career and for Gatland to take 1000 lashes for his criminal act in selecting a winning side.

Thats from what I've read might go close to what Sin is after...though he probably wants more.
i think they should set the whole match up again with Bod playing and is allowed to score the winning try . jd2 must clean is boots after
good point...I'll start on that one then. Make sure they bring the trophy back though just in case the result changes...
Taylorman, why are you so bitter when it comes to O'Driscoll? Nobody is looking for an apology, thats just ridiculous.
I'm not bitter when it comes to ODriscoll. I'm bitter, if thats the word, about the sheer over-reaction to his dropping, and the complete lack of respect given to a selection that was proven a successful one and possibly a masterstroke that many in the NH would not have had the guts to make- thats now obvious. I have nothing against O'Driscoll, I rate him one of the best players in the last 20 or so years to come out of the NH.

But this uncessant on and on and on and on about his dropping is THE single most ridiculous reaction to any I have ever seen in my time watching the game. not just for the lack of respect for the selection but the sheer number that have put a black mark of doom over the entire tour. To choose en masse to not enjoy the win as a composite side but instead embark on a vendetta of commentary using all available media is frankly an embarrassment to the lions concept- they cant even win when they do win.

And thank heavens they did win...who knows what would have happened if theyd lost, if this is the treatment they get for winning.

Agree completely with this

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 4:16 pm

Taylorman wrote:I'm not bitter when it comes to ODriscoll. I'm bitter, if thats the word, about the sheer over-reaction to his dropping, and the complete lack of respect given to a selection that was proven a successful one and possibly a masterstroke that many in the NH would not have had the guts to make- thats now obvious. I have nothing against O'Driscoll, I rate him one of the best players in the last 20 or so years to come out of the NH.

But this uncessant on and on and on and on about his dropping is THE single most ridiculous reaction to any I have ever seen in my time watching the game. not just for the lack of respect for the selection but the sheer number that have put a black mark of doom over the entire tour. To choose en masse to not enjoy the win as a composite side but instead embark on a vendetta of commentary using all available media is frankly an embarrassment to the lions concept- they cant even win when they do win.

And thank heavens they did win...who knows what would have happened if theyd lost, if this is the treatment they get for winning.

To be honest I think you are over reacting a little more than any reaction I have seen to something that was always going to be debated. Yes some trolls on twitter got over excited but you seem to be mirror image of those trolls fighting the other side just as fervently for some reason.

Your use of words like:
sheer over-reaction
complete lack of respect
THE single most ridiculous reaction
black mark of doom over
a masterstroke

to me suggest you are getting very excited and carried away yourself.

You continously refer to the decision as a masterstroke yet anyone with a calm head has concluded that it really wouldnt have made much difference either way because if you look at the tests objectively the backs really dont feature as prominently in Gatlands gameplan as the forwards and neither Davies nor Drico were given much scope for any creative licence given the rather 1 dimensional direct backs strategy employed. The biggest difference in terms of performance between the second test and the third test was not the omission of BOD but the inclusion of Corbisero who is one of the real unsung heros of the Lions.

I think it suits your propensity for a rant on this subject to summarise the whole debacle as a genius move by Gatland when in reality in my opinion and not necessarly due to the O'Driscoll decision Gatland took the long way round with this series. I really think the Lions should actually have won the series more comprehensively and would have had Gatland trusted the backs a lot more and allowed them to take the game to Australia.

Also you refer to the incessant on and on of the dropping yet really it seems to me that at this stage it is the Gatland apologists that want to discuss this more than anyone and just because the Lions won the series anyone that doesnt agree with some of his decisions should hang their heads in shame.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 4:23 pm

miaow wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:FES I dont think anyone thinks BODs 2nd test was miraculous. Most people who argued for his inclusion simply thought it was marginally better than Davies.
I'm afraid that's not true. If the opposition to Davies's selection was down to a 'marginally better' performance by BOD, it would not have merited the strength of response, which has been on the verge of vitriolic.

There were other factors at play. The fact that BOD should have been next in line as captain given he has over 80 caps experience as captain vs the guy chosen to be captain who had captained his country once about 5 years ago.

Also BOD has much more experience than Davies which when dealing with fine margins is something that could have counted in his favour.

These are logical arguements but some opinions were no doubt warped given the stature of the man who was dropped. In any case lest you havent noticed many of the counter arguments have been just as vitriolic.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 4:56 pm

rodders wrote:I can't speak for Wood (who's a terrible pundit imo) but there seems to be an attitude that because the Lions won the series that Gatland is above criticism and that everyone unhappy about the selection(s) has to bow down and eat humble pie in all Lions debates henceforth.

You certainly won't get that attitude from me. He got plenty right, but, for example, only taking two fly halves was not a good decision, and the "Hogg experiment" at 10 unravelled against the Brumbies.

The composition of the squad wasn't perfect, and in some positions the Lions had a lack of depth as a result. The Brumbies defeat in particularly was most certainly avoidable.

I think you could also crititique the selection and approach to the 2nd Test.

However, Wood criticised (and most importantly maintains his criticism) Gatland's selection, tactics and approach to the 3rd Test. When you win a match that emphatically, I think you can quite rightly expect Keith Wood to eat some humble pie with respect to his comments about lack of flair, the Lions not geling as four nations and the "traditions" of the Lions being betrayed.

by Sin é Mon 26 Aug 2013, 4:58 pm

miaow wrote:
Sin é wrote:Lots of players didn't get a chance who should have .... it just happens that BOD was the most obvious one for everyone outside of Wales to get annoyed about.
Why? Because of what he's done in the past? His omission was surprising given his prestige, but to be annoyed about it? Just shows you're far too emotive about this, how his non-selection doesn't fit the script. If you genuinely wanted the Lions to win the Tour, if you actually put aside your national bias, you wouldn't have been annoyed about him not being selected, because the Lions won emphatically. But you clearly don't care about the Lions. Dropping the best known player on the planet was going to cause a bit more of a wave than dropping Jamie Heaslip or A Culbert. I thought Gatland's method of dropping him was nasty (wheeling him out to a press conference the week he was going to drop him ? What the hell was that about? I wanted the Lions to win, but I think they could have won just as easily if they had dropped Mike Phillips started Sexton-Murray in the 3 tests.

Sin é wrote:Sean O'Brien should have got more of a chance than he did, but we didn't moan about it because Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.
Utter conjecture. Warburton was injured, and once up to speed, got better and better, peaking in the second Test before going off injured. O'Brien had a great Tour, but in no way can you categorically state he was the better player. Like Croft and Lydiate, they brought different things to the game. Yep, Warburton was there on reputation. As soon as he got up to speed he got injured. (no surprises there). PS - I said we didn't complain because O'Brien didn't get more of a chance (that is not saying he is the better player - though it looked that way from the the 3rd Test).

Sin é wrote:Manu Tualagi didn't get a chance. The most promising centre partnership was BOD & Manu - but as soon as Gatland saw that happening, he didn't put them together again.
Again, Tuilagi was injured, or have you forgotten that. No, I remember. But starting a centre twice in the one week is asking for trouble. Then maybe bringing more than 1 inside centre might have been useful or was Jamie Roberts expected to start all games?

I'd also presume Gatland, and Howley, saw a lot more of the combination in training sessions. You're really clutching at straws trying to pass this off as some grand plan by Gatland. Roberts was clearly integral to the gameplan, and proved his worth in the final Test. Whatever his flaws, he is so unbelievably effective at what he does. Also, Jon Davies was arguably the best performing centre in the games before the Tests. And you can't simply state that was due to the poor opposition; it's the same opposition you're basing your preferred centre partnership on.
Well, Paul O'Connell must have seen them as well and he couldn't understand why BOD was dropped. Did Gatland think that Roberts was going to start every game?

Davies was not the best performing centre. For proof just check all the British media player ratings to prove that one. (He had a very good outing in one game against the Waratahs - that was about it).

Sin é wrote:Irish fans were not moaning and groaning about Jamie Heaslip being dropped for no good reason - surprising that he didn't want to reunite the Leinster & Ireland backrow.
Faletau had performed no worse on the Tour, and after Heaslip starting two Tests and not asserting himself, Faletau was selected. I fail to see how there was 'no good reason' for his dropping. Again, Gatland was the coach, can do what he wants to win, and he did. Get over it. This made me laugh

Sin é wrote:Bowe shouldn't have started because of his injury. Bowe probably got the call becuase of his experience of playing in Wales and he could be the token Irish back.
You're an idiot. LOL

Sin é wrote:Now, can anyone tell me why Mike Phillips started? Murray is just a better scrumhalf than him (and just as physical). Apart from Phillips & Young's poor form, his partnership with Sexton should have made it a no brainer.
Probably because when Phillips is on form, he's very difficult to play against, and is best suited to the gameplan Gatland wants to play (something you clearly don't understand). Murray is clearly far less physical than Phillips, no scrum half comes near, and it's total conjecture again, which you've stated as fact, that he is a better scrum half. Let's be fair, Murray and Sexton have hardly proved to be a solid pairing for Ireland. And as mentioned earlier, it's a lot easier to come off the bench and look good.So Phillips was played on reputation . Sexton & Murray did ok in the Millenium in the 6Ns. (Phillips was poor - and was poor on tour as well - certainly every time Murray came on, the Lions improved).

Sin é wrote:Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.
Ignoring the massive xenophobic chip on your shoulder there, he was probably asked because he did his best to undermine the spirit and notion of the borderless Lions, and was proved emphatically wrong as the Lions, with Jonathan Davies and the (apparently too many) 'Welshmen' selected with the other starting Lions, tore the Australians apart. Blind pride and ignorance isn't an enviable trait. He's also employed by the BBC as a television pundit. You see that's the thing - Woody (& Willie John McBride) know a thing or two more than Gatland or yourself about the Lions

Sin é wrote:Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.
There is a direct quote earlier in this thread from BOD stating the result is more important than his personal involvement. He stated he would rather have a Lions win without him in the side than a loss with him in it. You clearly would have preferred the latter, and revelled in the 'Welsh/British' Lions' loss. Grow up. Davies was stating, not complaining, he said he was simply ignoring it, that he had received threats on Twitter, something you've attempted to disparage as a medium for ten year olds before needlessly stating BOD has 400k followers on (the most simple of searches would reveal he has just over 350,000). Sin, you truly are an embarrassment.

Point 1 - I told you BOD is a classy bloke (unlike Gatland & Davies who are still whinging about it). There is no talk in the press about BOD being dropped in Ireland. We've moved on. Why does Davies/British media want to keep reminding everyone that BOD was dropped for him still? The only reason I can think of is because he isn't getting the attention that he thinks he deserves.

He has 354,311 to be exact. The reason why I stated that was to show that going on twitter, he is the best known rugby player on the planet (Dan Carter 235K, Wilko 163K).

(and with 354,311 followers, its hardly surprising a handful (according to Davies) might send abusive tweets.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 5:05 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
rodders wrote:I can't speak for Wood (who's a terrible pundit imo) but there seems to be an attitude that because the Lions won the series that Gatland is above criticism and that everyone unhappy about the selection(s) has to bow down and eat humble pie in all Lions debates henceforth.
You certainly won't get that attitude from me. He got plenty right, but, for example, only taking two fly halves was not a good decision, and the "Hogg experiment" at 10 unravelled against the Brumbies.

The composition of the squad wasn't perfect, and in some positions the Lions had a lack of depth as a result. The Brumbies defeat in particularly was most certainly avoidable.

I think you could also crititique the selection and approach to the 2nd Test.

However, Wood criticised (and most importantly maintains his criticism) Gatland's selection, tactics and approach to the 3rd Test. When you win a match that emphatically, I think you can quite rightly expect Keith Wood to eat some humble pie with respect to his comments about lack of flair, the Lions not geling as four nations and the "traditions" of the Lions being betrayed.

I think Wood's point was that there should be a mix of the nations. Picking 10 Welsh players for the last test doesnt really represent a mix. I dont see how winning the test changes anything in that respect.

I also said from the start when a mostly Welsh side played v the BaBa's that makes the team feel like less of a Lions team when there is a clear majority of one nations players. I think you are just going to have to accept that because of its unique make up the Lions will always have a different meaning to different people and long may it continue..

by **rodders** Mon 26 Aug 2013, 5:15 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
I think you could also crititique the selection and approach to the 2nd Test.

Most certainly which makes me shake my head when people throw BOD's performance in the first two tests as a justification for his dropping in the 3rd. The decision to ignore Grant in favour of Vainpolo was a disaster and the backrow, especially an out of sorts Warburton, were made mince meat off at the breakdown.

None of the backs had any sort of platform, yet BOD became the high profile scapegoat whilst Gats and his captain get off with no criticism whatsoever along with the player who missed the key tackle for the wallaby try.

All this talk about vindication and masterstrokes to me is nonsense, in my view Gatland got the selection badly wrong in the second test instead of taking the responsibility he made a public scapegoat of O'Driscoll knowing it would create a huge media uproar and that when he put square pegs in square holes in the pack then we'd have the beating of an injury ravaged wallabies side.

by wolfball Mon 26 Aug 2013, 5:20 pm

Davies did nothing wrong in being selected and does not deserve abusive tweets. I condemn those tweets completely though I have not seen them.

I want to talk about 606. Here is where it gets on my nerves. I am Irish. I believe that Gatland was a terrible choice for Lions coach and I believe that is vindicated by the tour. I really don't care about the number of Irish selected. I thought Bowe was there on rep just as much as any of the Welsh lads. but I do care about the LIONS ethos. Because otherwise whats the point of it? Really? Gatland didnt give a flying Frak about the ethos of the lions. Played a terrible gameplan for 2 full tests. Sullied the jersey with ridiculous additions like Court and Williams. Did his level best to mess up the confidence of Hogg. Played silly bugger with the media. That for me is why it was such a disappointment. The win was nice, but it was empty.

On BOD, Gatland had every right to drop BOD. He went with what he knew, the Welsh lads. An irish coach would have done the same I'm sure, its human nature. And he won. And BOD probably doesnt feel a part of that win. I wouldnt. Thats what makes sportsmen like him winners. They are not one's to ride on the coat tails of other people. And so as an Irishman who's life has been enriched by BOD hundreds of times over the years I am disappointed for him. He doesnt have a Lions win on his CV. He just doesnt. But thats his life to lead. And that is his supporters rights to feel terrible about. The hilarious thing would be the Welsh lads on here would feel the exact same way about one of their players. So settle down everyone. We are all human, we all have our heroes. BOD is ours and we feel for him. Leave us to feel that and let the bumholes on Twitter Frak themselves.

by asoreleftshoulder Mon 26 Aug 2013, 5:23 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
rodders wrote:So you can only criticise selection and tactics when a team loses?
Not at all.

But if you're going to criticise a team for having no flair and failing to gel, and then that team produces a strong attacking performance, record victory and includes huge performances from individuals hailing from three of the four constituent nations, perhaps have the good grace not to follow that up with a re-hash of "I was right. No flair. Lions tradition damaged. No blend of nations".

As I've tried to make clear, and I'll try again, I'm not so much criticising Wood for his pre-3rd Test view regarding BOD, close call and could have gone either way, but rather:

(1) his attack on Gatland regarding Lions "traditions"; and

(2) his inability to understand or realise that several of his opinions had been demonstrated to be incorrect.

In fairness it was a thirty minute long strong attacking performance versus 210 minutes of dross.Only after the forwards had completely knackered the Aussies did the Lions start to play.

I don't really care too much about the Bod thing but I do believe the Lions tour was very disappointing as Gatland didn't even come close to getting the best out of the players at his disposal.It might be a side effect of watching Ireland recently but I am not fooled by victory the way I once was,it's performances that matter.If you get the performance right the results will follow but the Lions didn't get the performance right until the very end and got very lucky to beat an average enough Oz.The big margin of the victory in the last match seem to make people forget just how poor the first and second performances were and also the fact that the Lions would have been 2-0 down only for the most ridiculous injury jinx I've seen happen to a team in one match.

If Gatland deserves credit for the performance and victory in the last Test then he deserves criticism for the rubbish served up in Tests 1 & 2.

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 5:26 pm

Spot on.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 5:29 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
I think Wood's point was that there should be a mix of the nations. Picking 10 Welsh players for the last test doesnt really represent a mix. I dont see how winning the test changes anything in that respect.

But that is not Wood's point. He categorically states that he is not criticising the number of Welsh players picked for the team......which is why his "mix of nations" argument is so hard to reconcile.

I don't think he knows his own mind, and/or he certainly doesn't know how to articulate it.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 5:36 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:It might be a side effect of watching Ireland recently but I am not fooled by victory the way I once was,it's performances that matter.If you get the performance right the results will follow but the Lions didn't get the performance right until the very end and got very lucky to beat an average enough Oz.The big margin of the victory in the last match seem to make people forget just how poor the first and second performances were and also the fact that the Lions would have been 2-0 down only for the most ridiculous injury jinx I've seen happen to a team in one match.

If Gatland deserves credit for the performance and victory in the last Test then he deserves criticism for the rubbish served up in Tests 1 & 2.

Yes, but Wood's comments came after the team selection for the 3rd Test, and it's those comments he defends despite the 3rd Test.

Also, the Lions don't get to worry about "performance" in the same way as Test Nations do and I don't think the comparison with Ireland really holds water. The Lions are not building for anything. Sure, winning the series does not mean that Gatland got every decision right, but I certainly don't criticise him for neglecting "performance" for the sake of winning. The Lions were far more stylish in 2001 but lost. I know which series I prefer!

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Aug 2013, 5:37 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
I think Wood's point was that there should be a mix of the nations. Picking 10 Welsh players for the last test doesnt really represent a mix. I dont see how winning the test changes anything in that respect.
But that is not Wood's point. He categorically states that he is not criticising the number of Welsh players picked for the team......which is why his "mix of nations" argument is so hard to reconcile.

I don't think he knows his own mind, and/or he certainly doesn't know how to articulate it.

Fair enough. He does contradict himself a lot. However, really cant understand why you feel so adament that he should apologise. Its his job to give his opinion and thrash out such issues even if he is wrong.

by Sin é Mon 26 Aug 2013, 6:16 pm

Woody is not being critical of the Welsh players (though he could have questioned the selection of Mike Phillips for starters).

His point is that the team should be a blend from the 4 different rugby nations (just not dominated by one team because they play a certain style that is powerbased*). He would have the same complaint if there were 10 Irishmen starting with an Irish coaching team and an Irish captain which the gameplan revolves around being big and beating up the opposition.

He also said in interview that he didn't like the way Gatland was depowered the captaincy - making the point that the Martin Johnson was really important on the tour that he was on in '97. (and for the record, there were 3/22 Irishmen in the Test team for the final SA Test).

*The edge that George North & Cutbert has on other wingers is that they are huge and the gameplan is built for them. Gatland/Jenkins couldn't cope with someone like Zebo.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 6:22 pm

I just think he went too far when he said that Gatland had betrayed the traditions of the Lions, and when given the opportunity to admit that he may have got a couple of things wrong, I think he should have admitted as much.

I have no issue with his opinion that BOD should have started 13 with Roberts, and when anyone says that the Lions would probably have won with either JD2 or BOD at 13, I find it hard to think of any compelling argument against that assertion.

It's the manner of his comments and his reaction at the time which is evoking such a strong reaction in me. Heaven forbid we get stuck with the sort of bland nonsense you expect from pundits like Andy Nicol, but if you are going to stick your neck out and brand a decision plain wrong, and start questionning the fabric of the touring squad, you do look slightly silly when the same side spanks the Aussies by a record margin, and you can't admit that perhaps you let the situation and your love of one of your countries greatest ever players get the better of you.

That said, I got similarly emotional when Dan Parks didn't make the Lions squad....I knew from that point onwards that the spirit of the Lions was tainted.....

by funnyExiledScot Mon 26 Aug 2013, 6:28 pm

Sin é wrote:Woody is not being critical of the Welsh players (though he could have questioned the selection of Mike Phillips for starters).

His point is that the team should be a blend from the 4 different rugby nations (just not dominated by one team because they play a certain style that is powerbased*). He would have the same complaint if there were 10 Irishmen starting with an Irish coaching team and an Irish captain which the gameplan revolves around being big and beating up the opposition.

He also said in interview that he didn't like the way Gatland was depowered the captaincy - making the point that the Martin Johnson was really important on the tour that he was on in '97. (and for the record, there were 3/22 Irishmen in the Test team for the final SA Test).

*The edge that George North & Cutbert has on other wingers is that they are huge and the gameplan is built for them. Gatland/Jenkins couldn't cope with someone like Zebo.

....and yet somehow they managed to "cope with" someone like Shane Williams for a number of years.....

On the captaincy point, it was a very hard one to deal with to be fair. There was no particularly strong candidate this time around, and at the time of selection we were all debating in a number of different directions. I personally didn't feel the tour lacked leadership. I think we'd all have preferred a strong and iconic captain, but sadly there wasn't such a candidate guaranteed to start the tests.

by Guest Mon 26 Aug 2013, 6:36 pm

Sin é wrote:Woody is not being critical of the Welsh players (though he could have questioned the selection of Mike Phillips for starters).

His point is that the team should be a blend from the 4 different rugby nations (just not dominated by one team because they play a certain style that is powerbased*). He would have the same complaint if there were 10 Irishmen starting with an Irish coaching team and an Irish captain which the gameplan revolves around being big and beating up the opposition.

He also said in interview that he didn't like the way Gatland was depowered the captaincy - making the point that the Martin Johnson was really important on the tour that he was on in '97. (and for the record, there were 3/22 Irishmen in the Test team for the final SA Test).

*The edge that George North & Cutbert has on other wingers is that they are huge and the gameplan is built for them. Gatland/Jenkins couldn't cope with someone like Zebo.

This shows you watch very little rugby. Cuthbert has never run through anyone in his life. He's a line breaker, a speed man. He only got his first 15 man rugby union contract secured in the middle of last season - before that he was contracted to the blues for £5k a year and his main contract was a 7's one with the WRU. 7's players are not power based in the way you suggest here. The Wales game plan in which he plays is not therefore solely a power game. Cuthbert is just tall!

Also, who's Jenkins? The kicking coach?!

by Guest Mon 26 Aug 2013, 7:52 pm

Sin é wrote:Dropping the best known player on the planet was going to cause a bit more of a wave than dropping Jamie Heaslip or A Culbert. I thought Gatland's method of dropping him was nasty (wheeling him out to a press conference the week he was going to drop him ? What the hell was that about? I wanted the Lions to win, but I think they could have won just as easily if they had dropped Mike Phillips started Sexton-Murray in the 3 tests.

Hahaha.

Sin é wrote:Yep, Warburton was there on reputation. As soon as he got up to speed he got injured. (no surprises there). PS - I said we didn't complain because O'Brien didn't get more of a chance (that is not saying he is the better player - though it looked that way from the the 3rd Test).

Of course you select a player on their reputation. It would be moronic to ignore how a player has previously performed when selecting a side. To solely select a player, and team, based on 'reputation' (I suppose you mean long term performances over recent games, i.e. form) would be foolish. But those are the black and white principles you're applying, certainly not how Gatland, or any coach, would select a team, or how most fans accept and view rugby and how it works. Oh, and you literally included your quote where you said O'Brien was better than Warburton in the same paragraph where you deny saying it. Here it is:

Sin é wrote:Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.

Sin é wrote:But starting a centre twice in the one week is asking for trouble. Then maybe bringing more than 1 inside centre might have been useful or was Jamie Roberts expected to start all games?

Jonathan Davies played more minutes on Tour than any other player, your point is utterly moot. You could criticise Gatland's initial selection, but I suppose the four centres were taken due to the dearth of competition; if injury occurred, Tuilagi or Davies would fill in at 12, as they did, and if injury occurred at 13, Hogg, North, Bowe or another of the back three players could have filled in. Not an ideal situation, but certainly a better one than taking only two fly halves (perhaps Biggar should have gone... Wink

)

Sin é wrote:Well, Paul O'Connell must have seen them as well and he couldn't understand why BOD was dropped. Did Gatland think that Roberts was going to start every game?

Great players do not necessarily make great judgements, see Keith Wood for evidence of that. He's also in the very biased position of growing through the Irish team with and knowing what BOD can do at his very best. He's also good mates with him. In essence, if you want a balanced opinion, he's not in a great position to judge, albeit being of excellent pedigree as a great player. I think Gatland proved to be a little naive in his selections, especially given the nature of the attritional rugby they played; he even admitted as much as we saw Barritt and Twelvetrees called up. None of which affects the issue in hand, but any stick to try and bash him with, eh? Wink

Sin é wrote:Davies was not the best performing centre. For proof just check all the British media player ratings to prove that one. (He had a very good outing in one game against the Waratahs - that was about it).

You have a very interesting notion of proof. I'd suggest you know little about rugby, and question whether you even watch or play it, if you require player ratings from national newspapers for you to judge how a game went. It's looking increasingly likely that may be the case.

Sin é wrote:So Phillips was played on reputation . Sexton & Murray did ok in the Millenium in the 6Ns. (Phillips was poor - and was poor on tour as well - certainly every time Murray came on, the Lions improved).

Yes, he was picked on reputation, as was every other player on the Tour. I think I've dealt with that issue above. None of the scrum halves did enough to pull in front of the other two to 'earn' the shirt. Phillips started the Tour very well in Hong Kong, Murray, when he played, was possibly the slowest starter, but then ended the Tour well. All three scrum halves blew hot and cold. Apparently in your mind, there was "proof" that Murray played, and would have been better, than Phillips. All of which has absolutely no relation to the issue of BOD's selection, but, as we can clearly see, it's got absolutely nothing to do with that, and how much of an anti-Irish bias you can claim to exist.

Sin é wrote:You see that's the thing - Woody (& Willie John McBride) know a thing or two more than Gatland or yourself about the Lions

I'm sure those three know infinitely more than I, or you, do about elite rugby in general, although Gatland's experience is arguably the most relevant to the modern game, being the only one still currently at the forefront of it. However, I'm intrigued how you can quantify just how much those individuals know about the Lions, and how the two Irishmen in question know more than the coach of the most recent Lions victory...(uh oh, you're looking more and more like an idiot...)

Sin é wrote:I told you BOD is a classy bloke (unlike Gatland & Davies who are still whinging about it). There is no talk in the press about BOD being dropped in Ireland. We've moved on. Why does Davies/British media want to keep reminding everyone that BOD was dropped for him still? The only reason I can think of is because he isn't getting the attention that he thinks he deserves.

You've clearly moved on.

Sin é wrote:He has 354,311 to be exact. The reason why I stated that was to show that going on twitter, he is the best known rugby player on the planet (Dan Carter 235K, Wilko 163K). (and with 354,311 followers, its hardly surprising a handful (according to Davies) might send abusive tweets.

Yes, he doesn't have "over 400k followers". Do you regularly just make figures up? If I told you that the Lions won the third Test 66-3, would it matter, because I merely stated that to show you that the Lions won the game comprehensively? You've clearly backtracked from Twitter being a playground which no one takes seriously, then. It seems you are open to change of opinion then. Perhaps there is hope. I cannot be bothered to explain to you how those who sent threats to break Davies's legs don't have to be one of BOD's followers; clearly blindly backing BOD to the hilt, to illegal limits, is something you would identify with.[/quote][/quote]

by Guest Mon 26 Aug 2013, 7:53 pm

by Sponsored content