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

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

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Couldn't get it sorry, but that's fine that POC should be renowned as a terrible professional.

So you are making judgements on something you know nothing about.  

And then has the cheek to accuse me of lying.

You couldn't make it up  

Why wouldn't I take you at your word when I couldn't access your link? Maybe because you think that you can call JD2 a liar, as you can't see the abusive tweets, after I told you about the way to complain about twitter abuse easily found in the news.

I'm making a judgement based on the fact that me as a player would not nearly miss a coach to a game (if injured) even as an amateur. If you think that's professional, then again you're blinded by your alleged saints. Anybody who agrees with you has clearly not been a rugby player and more importantly a team player and/or a valued squad member. If somebody pulled a stroke like that in a squad I played in, I'd hope my coaches would punish him. In POC's case, I'd cut his win bonus I'm sure he gladly snapped up, as he clearly didn't care about turning up in time.

You couldn't access the link and so I must be telling lies.  

If I were you, I'd listen to it before making a complete boobie of yourself

You can't find the abusive tweets, so JD must be telling lies

If I were you, I'd read my old link about twitter abuse and stop making a booby (singular) of yourself

But unlike the so called abusive tweets, the POC radio interview where he said he nearly missed the bus is still available on line.  

(PS - he also said he stayed on for a bit of a holiday because the Lions were going to some nice beach resort  )

Hahaha, good night Irene, we are done. You still think JD was seeing magical, make believe tweets after my link that didn't require listening, but a simple read of a little page. Abusive tweets can get deleted.

As nice as I'm sure Noosa is, I'm sure POC could've left the squad and gone on his own little "bit of a holiday" somewhere else if he wanted to. Like I said, he was asked to stay, not ordered to. Or (as I've asked you before) is he that poor that he can't afford to do it? I actually think that if POC was asked to stay (like he was according to you) and he knew he was still travelling with the squad in someway (as he must've done for test two), then the fact he nearly missed the bus, is a poor reflection on him.

I am not sure why your Irish compatriots think you're hard work? All you do is cherry pick your arguments and go round in circles with your "debates".

I'm out now beaut, as I can't go round in a loop again. You, Rodders and the rest of your blinkered disciples keep telling yourselves that BOD getting dropped is the crime of the century. I'll see you after Ireland v Wales when I look forward to seeing your attempts at justifying BOD's inclusion in the third test squad based on Ireland's probable win next year. I'll just enjoy the Lions win for four years and think that if BOD or whoever need to bring alleged Lions hardship to motivate themselves to play for their country, then they don't deserve a place in their national squad anyway (no international should need an excuse to play well for their country)!!!

Anyway Nos da Sin. Not coming back in. Though I could in a week tops and still be in the same place.

Wow. 500 posts on "there are knobs on twitter". Nice one.

slane wrote:From an Irish perspective we were angry because BOD was playing well (if not better than Davis) this was his last and only chance to win on a Lions tour (Davis will have more tours) and because Gatland never even put him on the bench!!

If you can't even say with any confidence that O'Driscoll was playing better than Davies, then clearly he was far from undroppable on form.

You don't select Test sides on sentiment, otherwise no one would ever get dropped and there'd never be any Test debuts unless someone died.

The bench was selected with a victory in mind, just as the XV was. Selecting O'Driscoll there would have been a sop.

[quote="aucklandlaurie"]

Sin é wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: I was reading somewhere that, in early Sepetember Brian O'Driscoll is going to be joined by team mates and coaches from the Irish and Leinster rugby teams, to celebrate his career to date on a TV show called the "Late, Late show".

There was no mention of any of the coaches or teammates from the Lions.....guess they just werent selected.

They had their chance to turn up to a testimonial dinner in London to pay their respects. There was about 800 at it (including Prince William).

By the way, who says Gatty/Woodward/Geech won't be at it? I think both Woodward and Geech were at the testimonial in London along with quite a few of his old Lions team mates like Will Greenwood & Martin Johnson. Apart from those, there are quite a few Irish players/coaches who could represent the Lions Willie John McBride or Donal Lenihan (Team Manager for the 2001 Lions Tour and EOS was an assistant on the 2005 Tour).




Cuppla things:

The mere fact alone that O'Driscoll had a testimonial dinner before the tour happened, would indicate to most that even he acknowledges that he is at the end of his career/past it. Gatty  didnt go to it, possibly thinking that 700 euro a head ticket was a rip off.

I said there was " no mention......of his Lions team mates and coaches attending", I was actually referring to the 2013 Lions, which is the subject of this thread. but to assist you in what your concept of a debate is, the article didnt  mention Barrack Obama or the Queen attending either.

Even though Gatty was too mean to pay for a ticket (hardly surprising as one of the charities to benefit was the IRFU one for injured players), if he thought he was passed it, why did he select O'Driscoll for the Lions in the first place. It will be interesting to see if he will stump up for the flight to Dublin and overnight expenses for the Late Late Show.

By the way, whatever about the Queen (whose grandson went to it anyway), Barack Obama has nothing to do with the B&I Lions.

*Anyway, I'd imagine Gatty is back in New Zealand and few of his Lions team mates will be there as they will all have a match that night or the next day (though going on Paul O'Connell's wedding, none of his Lions team mates were at it - Mike Phillips was peed off about it on twitter - just shows how classy he is).

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Couldn't get it sorry, but that's fine that POC should be renowned as a terrible professional.

So you are making judgements on something you know nothing about.  

And then has the cheek to accuse me of lying.

You couldn't make it up  

Why wouldn't I take you at your word when I couldn't access your link? Maybe because you think that you can call JD2 a liar, as you can't see the abusive tweets, after I told you about the way to complain about twitter abuse easily found in the news.

I'm making a judgement based on the fact that me as a player would not nearly miss a coach to a game (if injured) even as an amateur. If you think that's professional, then again you're blinded by your alleged saints. Anybody who agrees with you has clearly not been a rugby player and more importantly a team player and/or a valued squad member. If somebody pulled a stroke like that in a squad I played in, I'd hope my coaches would punish him. In POC's case, I'd cut his win bonus I'm sure he gladly snapped up, as he clearly didn't care about turning up in time.

You couldn't access the link and so I must be telling lies.  

If I were you, I'd listen to it before making a complete boobie of yourself

You can't find the abusive tweets, so JD must be telling lies

If I were you, I'd read my old link about twitter abuse and stop making a booby (singular) of yourself

But unlike the so called abusive tweets, the POC radio interview where he said he nearly missed the bus is still available on line.  

(PS - he also said he stayed on for a bit of a holiday because the Lions were going to some nice beach resort  )

Hahaha, good night Irene, we are done. You still think JD was seeing magical, make believe tweets after my link that didn't require listening, but a simple read of a little page. Abusive tweets can get deleted.

As nice as I'm sure Noosa is, I'm sure POC could've left the squad and gone on his own little "bit of a holiday" somewhere else if he wanted to. Like I said, he was asked to stay, not ordered to. Or (as I've asked you before) is he that poor that he can't afford to do it? I actually think that if POC was asked to stay (like he was according to you) and he knew he was still travelling with the squad in someway (as he must've done for test two), then the fact he nearly missed the bus, is a poor reflection on him.

I am not sure why your Irish compatriots think you're hard work? All you do is cherry pick your arguments and go round in circles with your "debates".

I'm out now beaut, as I can't go round in a loop again. You, Rodders and the rest of your blinkered disciples keep telling yourselves that BOD getting dropped is the crime of the century. I'll see you after Ireland v Wales when I look forward to seeing your attempts at justifying BOD's inclusion in the third test squad based on Ireland's probable win next year. I'll just enjoy the Lions win for four years and think that if BOD or whoever need to bring alleged Lions hardship to motivate themselves to play for their country, then they don't deserve a place in their national squad anyway (no international should need an excuse to play well for their country)!!!

Anyway Nos da Sin. Not coming back in. Though I could in a week tops and still be in the same place.

Look, I think you should ask someone to help you listen to the radio link with POC's interview because even you might learn something that will give you a real insight into the tour.

Can't get your head around this then?

''... in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.''

Well, whether we like it or not, Twitter is open to everyone. Whoever they are, whatever their views and that means anyone can post and you will see some very unsavoury posts on there. I personally don't use Twitter so I'm not sure how it works. All I can say is that if someone is being abused (regardless of the reasons behind it) that the victim keeps reporting it and ignore the nasty posts as much as possible once they've reported them. No one deserves to be publicly abused online, so it should be dealt with the same way you'd deal with off line abuse as much as possible. I always say that abuse says more about the individual it comes from than the person it's directed at, but I appreciate how difficult it must've been for JD to see all the time.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

slane wrote:From an Irish perspective we were angry because BOD was playing well (if not better than Davis) this was his last and only chance to win on a Lions tour (Davis will have more tours) and because Gatland never even put him on the bench!!

If you can't even say with any confidence that O'Driscoll was playing better than Davies, then clearly he was far from undroppable on form.

You don't select Test sides on sentiment, otherwise no one would ever get dropped and there'd never be any Test debuts unless someone died.

The bench was selected with a victory in mind, just as the XV was. Selecting O'Driscoll there would have been a sop.

Unless Davies was doing lots of unseen work in the first 2 tests I don't see how anyone could argue that O'Driscoll wasn't playing better than him.

Anyone could see the best combinations available in the centre were Tuilagi/BOD and Roberts/BOD - in fact I've seen it argued on numerous ocaisions by Welsh fans (and pundits) that Roberts/Davies is a poor combo for Wales and that Davies should play 12 alongside the likes of Beck.

Now post Lions Davies is suddenly the best 13 ever and his poor form in the first 2 tests were because he was out of position and not beside his trusty colleague Roberts? .... hmm .... a few people clutching at straws I think....

Well said Cari. Davies is a great player and should not have to answer to anyone. Peversely though as this saga continues O'Driscoll is also getting a lot of flak for absolutely no reason. Debates like this really do bring the Drico haters from out of the woodwork.

GunsGerms wrote:Well said Cari. Davies is a great player and should not have to answer to anyone. Peversely though as this saga continues O'Driscoll is also getting a lot of flak for absolutely no reason. Debates like this really do bring the Drico haters from out of the woodwork.

Gatty is a great coach and shouldnt have to answer to anyone.

It would lead to pretty boring forums if we couldn't sit behind a computer screen picking apart coaches, players and refs though.

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

slane wrote:From an Irish perspective we were angry because BOD was playing well (if not better than Davis) this was his last and only chance to win on a Lions tour (Davis will have more tours) and because Gatland never even put him on the bench!!

If you can't even say with any confidence that O'Driscoll was playing better than Davies, then clearly he was far from undroppable on form.

You don't select Test sides on sentiment, otherwise no one would ever get dropped and there'd never be any Test debuts unless someone died.

The bench was selected with a victory in mind, just as the XV was. Selecting O'Driscoll there would have been a sop.

Unless Davies was doing lots of unseen work in the first 2 tests I don't see how anyone could argue that O'Driscoll wasn't playing better than him.

The point is that neither was great and if one was better, there wasn't much in it. It was a close call and certainly Jamie Roberts's return to fitness had a lot to do with the decision.

rodders wrote:Now post Lions Davies is suddenly the best 13 ever   

I haven't heard anyone say that.

Technically speaking, this whole argument has been made up, BOD (who had been playing at 12) was dropped for Roberts.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Well said Cari. Davies is a great player and should not have to answer to anyone. Peversely though as this saga continues O'Driscoll is also getting a lot of flak for absolutely no reason. Debates like this really do bring the Drico haters from out of the woodwork.

Gatty is a great coach and shouldnt have to answer to anyone.

 

He is a great coach when it suits you to say he is a great coach. If for example the debate was that he learned his trade in the NH is a product of the NH and is a great coach and good enough to be the next Kiwi coach you would be singing a different tune.

Gatland doesnt have to answer to anyone but that doesnt mean he is untouchable to criticism.

Comfort wrote:Technically speaking, this whole argument has been made up, BOD (who had been playing at 12) was dropped for Roberts.

Technically you're completely wrong because BOD was playing 13 and was dropped for Davies who moved from 12 to 13.

GunsGerms wrote:

Comfort wrote:Technically speaking, this whole argument has been made up, BOD (who had been playing at 12) was dropped for Roberts.

Technically you're completely wrong because BOD was playing 13 and was dropped for Davies who moved from 12 to 13.

Not at all, there was 2 players in the starting centres, 1 was dropped (BOD) and another came in (Roberts).

Tell me who was dropped for who  

Davies played 12 when he started with Manu.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

rodders wrote:Now post Lions Davies is suddenly the best 13 ever   

I haven't heard anyone say that.

I've seen plenty of references to the idea that this was a form versus reputation selection - Davies the best centre on tour and many other false retrospective claims by Gatland's supporters to justify what was clearly a non rugby based selection.

Not one person picked that Davies would be starting previous to the announcement because from the options available it was clear cut, not close like you are suggesting.

Gatland deliberately led everyone to believe that Roberts/BOD would be the favoured combination for the tests and also that O'Driscoll would captain in Warburton's absence. These were the obvious conclusions to draw because they made logical sense based on the resources available.

No one picked Davies/Roberts because its not regarded as a good combination for Wales and also because Davies was one of the worst players in tests one and two.

There has been a complete rewriting of history by O'Driscoll/Irish haters. Its pretty disgusting to be honest so fair play to Wood, O'Connell et al. for not jumping on the bandwagon and showing some integrity and courage.

Comfort wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Comfort wrote:Technically speaking, this whole argument has been made up, BOD (who had been playing at 12) was dropped for Roberts.

Technically you're completely wrong because BOD was playing 13 and was dropped for Davies who moved from 12 to 13.

Not at all, there was 2 players in the starting centres, 1 was dropped (BOD) and another came in (Roberts).

Tell me who was dropped for who  

Drico was dropped for Davies.

 Centres in the 2nd test

Davies
O'Driscoll


Centres in the 3rd test

Roberts
Davies


For real. Only 1 person was dropped, and only 1 new player came in, neither of those was Davies. Conclusive evidence.

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Well said Cari. Davies is a great player and should not have to answer to anyone. Peversely though as this saga continues O'Driscoll is also getting a lot of flak for absolutely no reason. Debates like this really do bring the Drico haters from out of the woodwork.

Gatty is a great coach and shouldnt have to answer to anyone.

 

He is a great coach when it suits you to say he is a great coach. If for example the debate was that he learned his trade in the NH is a product of the NH and is a great coach and good enough to be the next Kiwi coach you would be singing a different tune.

Gatland doesnt have to answer to anyone but that doesnt mean he is untouchable to criticism.

Thats not true Ive always stated my respect for Warren Gatland as a coach/tactician even when he was playing for Taupuri and in the off-season he would go up to coach in the Northern Hemisphere.and Ive always said that he would be thereabouts should he apply for the AB job, though always conditional upon New Zealand looking to appoint coaches currently coaching in New Zealand.


But you are right in saying that he isnt immune from criticism. theres plenty of proof of that above.

Comfort wrote: Centres in the 2nd test

Davies
O'Driscoll


Centres in the 3rd test

Roberts
Davies


For real. Only 1 person was dropped, and only 1 new player came in, neither of those was Davies. Conclusive evidence.

WUM

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

rodders wrote:Now post Lions Davies is suddenly the best 13 ever   

I haven't heard anyone say that.

I've seen plenty of references to the idea that this was a form versus reputation selection - Davies the best centre on tour and many other false retrospective claims by Gatland's supporters to justify what was clearly a non rugby based selection.

Not one person picked that Davies would be starting previous to the announcement because from the options available it was clear cut, not close like you are suggesting.

Gatland deliberately led everyone to believe that Roberts/BOD would be the favoured combination for the tests and also that O'Driscoll would captain in Warburton's absence. These were the obvious conclusions to draw because they made logical sense based on the resources available.

No one picked Davies/Roberts because its not regarded as a good combination for Wales and also because Davies was one of the worst players in tests one and two.

There has been a complete rewriting of history by O'Driscoll/Irish haters. Its pretty disgusting to be honest so fair play to Wood, O'Connell et al. for not jumping on the bandwagon and showing some integrity and courage.

No offence, but it can't have been clear cut, or O'Driscoll would have been selected. Unless you're right and O'Driscoll was by far the better player of the two, but Gatland chose to drop him because he hates the IRFU.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Well said Cari. Davies is a great player and should not have to answer to anyone. Peversely though as this saga continues O'Driscoll is also getting a lot of flak for absolutely no reason. Debates like this really do bring the Drico haters from out of the woodwork.

Gatty is a great coach and shouldnt have to answer to anyone.

 

He is a great coach when it suits you to say he is a great coach. If for example the debate was that he learned his trade in the NH is a product of the NH and is a great coach and good enough to be the next Kiwi coach you would be singing a different tune.

Gatland doesnt have to answer to anyone but that doesnt mean he is untouchable to criticism.

 Thats not true Ive always stated my respect for Warren Gatland as a coach/tactician even when he was playing for Taupuri and in the off-season he would go up to coach in the Northern Hemisphere.and Ive always said that he would be thereabouts should he apply for the AB job, though always conditional upon New Zealand looking to appoint coaches currently coaching in New Zealand.


 But you are right in saying that he isnt immune from criticism. theres plenty of proof of that above.

So you think he should be the next AB coach?

Would you be happy with the tactics he employs? For example in all three tests I can think of only two rehearsed backs moves used. The lazy runner move for Cuthberts try in the second test and the loop move for Sexton's try in the last test.

Gatland's tactics were to bash the Aussie backs into oblivion until they finally caved. As a result the first two tests were really close when I really think the Aussies were there for the taking if the Lions backs showed some invention.

Guns Germs

There was a thread on this very subject (possible future AB coaches) not that long ago. I made my opinion very clear,much to the disagreement of some other Kiwi posters, that I considered gatty very much a serious prospect for the job.

I do agree with tactics which he adopts, in the event of him coaching in a New Zealand environment the number of "rehearsed back moves" is not a relevant basis upon which to judge like Gatland. if he was coaching in New Zealand I daresay back moves would probably be the domain of one Wayne Smith.

Tell you what though he doesnt shy away from making the hard decisions even if those decisions do not go down well with others.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Tell you what though he doesnt shy away from making the hard decisions even if those decisions do not go down well with others.

That was just an attention seeking exercise. Couldn't cope with having BOD getting all the attention as a rugby icon on his 4th Lions tour coming away with a tour win. Gatty has never got over the fact that another rugby icon blocked him from having a better playing career and his moment of fame.

Must really urine him off that the only people who are impressed with him as a coach are from south Wales. When you do a google search for Keith Wood's comments, they only seem to be published on Welsh media sites and BBC Wales!

Clearly he has an incredible CV. Probably the best CV in world rugby even if he hasnt won a world cup so yes he should be considered.

However, Gatland would probably bring his own team so Smith may or may not be involved. Also Gatlands sides all play a very similar way. I think as a coach his style would complement SA more than NZ or Aus for example. That said whatever his ethos I still think he would be very sucessful if he was to coach NZ.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
No offence, but it can't have been clear cut, or O'Driscoll would have been selected. Unless you're right and O'Driscoll was by far the better player of the two, but Gatland chose to drop him because he hates the IRFU.

Well it is a fact that Gatland hates the IRFU and Ireland generally and also that O'Driscoll to most neutral observers played better in tests one and 2 (see links). It is a fact also that O'Driscoll was on field captain in Warbuton's absence in test 2 and was the player used to do the bulk of post match media, which understandably would give the impression that he would not only be starting the final test but captaining too.

It is up to the individual observer how they choose to interpret these facts - to me the logical conclusion that this was either pre-planned or some incident occurred between the second and third test (O'Driscoll was publically critical of the tactics and attacking play) either way these facts should not be just ignored which is what some people want to do and just make out this was a purely rugby based decision that was vindicated by the result because it suits their perspective to do so.

This is the thin end of the wedge if left unchallenged, that henceforth any future Lions coach should have a free reign to treat the concept with total disdain and show blatant and unashamed bias when it comes to tactics and selection and be absolved criticism when a satisfactory result is obtained by any means.  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10150974/Lions-v-Australia-second-Test-player-ratings.html
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/player-ratings-wallabies-vs-british-lions-first-test/
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jun/22/australia-british-and-irish-lions

You could say the opposite laurie. It could have been much harder on him to have to go back to the Wales team and lift certain players who he hadn't chosen. In the end he picked Hibbard, Phillips, Davies who you could all consider 50 50s. Even Lydiate got some favourable time. Roberts was certain to start if remotedly fit due to being the only 12 on tour. Only Tipuric can feel truely hard done by (but a Welshman was at 7) and possibly Cuthbert at a push but most would consider Bowe the better player.

Sin é wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Tell you what though he doesnt shy away from making the hard decisions even if those decisions do not go down well with others.

That was just an attention seeking exercise. Couldn't cope with having BOD getting all the attention as a rugby icon on his 4th Lions tour coming away with a tour win. Gatty has never got over the fact that another rugby icon blocked him from having a better playing career and his moment of fame.

Must really urine him off that the only people who are impressed with him as a coach are from south Wales. When you do a google search for Keith Wood's comments, they only seem to be published on Welsh media sites and BBC Wales!

Like I said the whole whohaa about this debate really is just being drawn out by the British media. Doesnt feature much in Ireland, nobody cares anymore. I find the news of the badger cull in England much more interesting.

Gatland has always been an attention seeker. Thats his style. It works well for some coaches.

Warburton: Keith Wood 'doesn't know rugby'    
22 Aug 2013 09:30
Sam slams Wood over criticism of Lions' victory

“I remember Warren telling us the way you beat Australia is by being physical. He’d told us that with Wales before.

“That is the way we won – the proof was in the pudding.

And Warburton underlined just what a great tour Gatland had presided over.

“You are always conscious meeting up with players from other nations but I was struck by how natural it felt with the Lions,” he said. “We all really enjoyed each other’s company and we had an identity from early on.

Sure Sam - no wonder you felt comfortable - it was Wales on tour with a few guests - not the Lions.

Looks like Woody has got it right.


http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/wales-flanker-sam-warburton-slams-5765748

Sin é wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Tell you what though he doesnt shy away from making the hard decisions even if those decisions do not go down well with others.

That was just an attention seeking exercise. Couldn't cope with having BOD getting all the attention as a rugby icon on his 4th Lions tour coming away with a tour win. Gatty has never got over the fact that another rugby icon blocked him from having a better playing career and his moment of fame.

Must really urine him off that the only people who are impressed with him as a coach are from south Wales. When you do a google search for Keith Wood's comments, they only seem to be published on Welsh media sites and BBC Wales!

It really didnt help that Galtand has a strained relationship with the IRFU and that he has said in the past that the Welsh players like the Irish players.

"Warren Gatland has stoked the fires ahead of this weekend's RBS Six Nations title decider by claiming his Welsh players "dislike the Irish the most".

He insists his charges are desperate to deny Ireland a first Grand Slam since 1948, stating provocatively: "Probably, out of all the teams in the Six Nations, the Welsh players dislike the Irish the most.

"Players' experiences against Ireland haven't always been the greatest, so they are very motivated to play against them."

It is not uncommon for Gatland to speak out against other nations. He also came in for criticism for comments he made re England prior to the Lions tour:

http://www.newstalk.ie/reader/47.302.349/5945/0/


Also I would like to point out once again that while it is conventient for all Irish haters out there to finger point all the criticism at "Irish" people there are infinite examples of criticism from other quarters levelled at Gatland. Here is a few examples:

Gatland Selecting too many Welsh:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10157018/Warren-Gatlands-selection-of-10-Welshmen-in-starting-XV-a-brazen-insult-to-very-concept-of-British-and-Irish-Lions.html

Support for O'Driscoll and criticism for Gatland:

McGeechan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10160115/Lions-2013-Sir-Ian-McGeechan-I-would-have-picked-Brian-ODriscoll-for-the-third-Test.html

Austin Healy, Stuart Barnes, Brian moore:

http://lite.rte.ie/sport/lite/rugby/2013/0703/460377-reaction-lions-xv-and-the-odriscoll-decision/

To summarise there has been much talk on this thread of the reaction in "Ireland" by "Irish" people yet I think its time to put to bed the notion that it is somehow the fault of the Irish nation collectively that Davies is getting abuse or that Gatland is getting criticism.

Laurie - Article from 2010 which might give some insight into why Irish people are suspicious of anything Warren does.


VINCENT HOGAN – 08 MARCH 2010

Well. I wonder what gentle incendiaries Warren Gatland has lined up for us this week. All may appear pleasant and tranquil right now, but it wouldn't be Ireland v Wales if Warren wasn't planning to throw his jacket on the ground and invite half the country outside to answer for some imagined slight.

Gatland has a problem with Irish rugby in the way Michael O'Leary has a problem with the Dublin Airport Authority. He feels that business between them has been soured by a toxic, personal agenda which, I'm afraid, makes him snappy as a menopausal warthog.

And just about as rational.

In 2008, he played his 'et tu, Brute' card against Eddie O'Sullivan. Last year, he went after the Irish players with his peaceable " Wales dislike Ireland more than any other team" address.

It's an eccentric way for a coach to behave, but Gatland -- it seems -- cannot help himself.

It is as if he lives in mortal dread of one day being invisible.

Now those who know him say he is an eminently decent sort. Witty. Self-deprecating. Never slow to buy his round. And his coaching record with Wasps and Wales clearly holds up to the harshest scrutiny.

But Warren developed an itch in the autumn of 2001 that, to this day, he keeps on scratching.

The day the IRFU opted not to renew his contract was the day Warren acquired a peculiar allergy against all things Irish.

We are his poison ivy and, short of sending an industrial vat of calamine lotion his way, it's a little hard to see how Warren and us can ever be remotely compatible again.

One of the unexplored stories of last year's Grand Slam game in Cardiff was the flaring unpleasantness in the Millennium Stadium stands. Ordinarily, international rugby crowds steam along amiably together, everyone florid with alcohol, but generally agreeable.

In Cardiff, the vibe was different. It was palpably sour. In maybe 15 previous visits for Wales-Ireland games, I can never remember a more menacing, confrontational vibe in the city.

Cardiff always feels a little overwhelmed by a Six Nations crowd and, no question, the late evening kick-off wasn't exactly conducive to thoughtful analysis of anything deeper than the demands of navigating safe passage to a bar counter.

But it felt too as if Gatland's words settled over the occasion like a chemical cloud.

And when Ryan Jones clattered needlessly into Ronan O'Gara in the first minute of the game, there was the sense of a team and its people in absolute union. And ever so slightly out of control.

The Welsh coach would explain later that his words had been intended as "a compliment" to Ireland.

From this, you will gather that listening to Warren retrace his steps is a bit like listening to a tree.

Now this column refuses to entertain the suggestion that, maybe, it's the Kiwi in him that is programmed for conflict. New Zealand rugby people are the most cerebral, non-confrontational people in the game today. Got that? It's crystal clear that any bad manners Warren might carry about were picked up this side of the equator.

You wouldn't ever get an All Black doing anything quite as daft as taking a golf cart down a motorway to buy a bar of chocolate, would you? Maybe the odd little outburst of hotel high-jinks here and there. But nothing to detain Her Majesty's finest unduly.

No, this is a local thing and Gatland has made the current Wales team rather easy to dislike.

In Cardiff especially, he seems endlessly tuned to provocation. Already this season, he has criticised the Scots for insisting the Millennium Stadium roof stayed open; then taken a swipe at the French, declaring his team had "played all the rugby" in a defeat against them.

And remember, in his attempt at conciliation just prior to last year's Grand Slam game, he opined that he might in future follow Declan Kidney's style of spouting "cliches and nothing."

Yep, Warren is to diplomacy what Smith and Wesson are to peace.

All of which seems a terrible pity, because he is surrounded by fine people. Rob Howley was as good a scrum-half as it has been this column's privilege to see. And Shaun Edwards broke just about every record there was to break in rugby league.

Just one thing about Edwards, mind. Does he not see how this thing of clutching a novel during games makes him look more than a mite pretentious? Apparently, he carries the book as some kind of pressure outlet, should he become too wound up in a game.

So, when Wales are defending a line-out inside their own 22, Shaun takes refuge in a few pages of Sebastian Faulks? Right.

And maybe Sam Allardyce will unfold a chess-board one of these days when El Hadji Diouf is romancing an opposition crowd.

Frankly, give me England and Martin 'Billy No Mates' Johnson any day ahead of Gatland's Wales. They may be delusional, but they're not drowning in self-absorption.

Ireland to win on Saturday. Warren to toss his jacket on the ground.

Irish Independent

Also re Keith Wood. It is probably worth mentioning that Wood was one of the main reasons that Gatland got fired as Ireland manager. If I remember correctly Wood did not see eye to eye with him and this helped force the IRFUs hand as Wood was world player of the year around the time gatland got axed. therefore it is no surprise Wood was particularly critical of Gatland. I wouldnt worry too much about what he says anyway because IMO he isnt a great pundit.

Well done to you all.

So far the arguments summed up have been thus:

1. Gatland hates Ireland, the IRFU and BOD and would not let him have his moment of glory.....

2. Gatland had clearly indiciated before selection for the 3rd test that BOD would start at 13 and be captain.

3. BOD's performances had by far been the best of any centre on tour and he justified selection through form and reputation.

4. Gatland made the decision for media attention.

All are really compelling and factual arguments...

Comfort wrote:Well done to you all.

So far the arguments summed up have been thus:

1. Gatland hates Ireland, the IRFU and BOD and would not let him have his moment of glory.....

2. Gatland had clearly indiciated before selection for the 3rd test that BOD would start at 13 and be captain.

3. BOD's performances had by far been the best of any centre on tour and he justified selection through form and reputation.

4. Gatland made the decision for media attention.

All are really compelling and factual arguments...

Finally the penny is beginning to drop. There are some either key points but the above points should be enough to draw conclusion as to the skulduggery which has unfolded.

GunsGerms wrote:Also re Keith Wood. It is probably worth mentioning that Wood was one of the main reasons that Gatland got fired as Ireland manager. If I remember correctly Wood did not see eye to eye with him and this helped force the IRFUs hand as Wood was world player of the year around the time gatland got axed. therefore it is no surprise Wood was particularly critical of Gatland. I wouldnt worry too much about what he says anyway because IMO he isnt a great pundit.

Woody didn't see eye-to-eye with him because he refused to hire specialist coaches. Teams like England were all using Defence Coaches and wanted Warren to hire one, but he refused. Apparently he didn't want a specialist backs coach either, up to that Ireland limited success with the 13 man lineout and as soon as EOS was taken on, Ireland started winning.

The first point is especially bizarre. If Gatland really was jealous of BOD and wanted to deny him his moment of Lions glory, why select him for the first two Tests, in the course of which the series was almost won? That's the least effective sabotage I've ever seen.

Comfort wrote:Well done to you all.

So far the arguments summed up have been thus:

1. Gatland hates Ireland, the IRFU and BOD and would not let him have his moment of glory.....

2. Gatland had clearly indiciated before selection for the 3rd test that BOD would start at 13 and be captain.

3. BOD's performances had by far been the best of any centre on tour and he justified selection through form and reputation.

4. Gatland made the decision for media attention.

All are really compelling and factual arguments...

1. Gatland has stated the Wales players dislike Ireland. He also does have a strained relationship with the IRFU. So yes this is based on fact. Whether this influcenced his decision nobody knows and I dont really care to be honest but I wouldnt be surprised either way.

2. Yes Gatland had implied on numerous occasions that O'Driscoll was a contender for captaincy. It is certainly strage to make a guy captain, even if he did really well, that had only one cap as captain 4 years ago in a dire performance v Italy. 80 caps as captain v 1 cap as captain.

3. Nobody said his performances were the best of any centre they were just better than Davies performances. Evidence of this has also been given.

4. There have been numerous examples of Gatland's comments to the media to back this up.

Sin é wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Also re Keith Wood. It is probably worth mentioning that Wood was one of the main reasons that Gatland got fired as Ireland manager. If I remember correctly Wood did not see eye to eye with him and this helped force the IRFUs hand as Wood was world player of the year around the time gatland got axed. therefore it is no surprise Wood was particularly critical of Gatland. I wouldnt worry too much about what he says anyway because IMO he isnt a great pundit.

Woody didn't see eye-to-eye with him because he refused to hire specialist coaches. Teams like England were all using Defence Coaches and wanted Warren to hire one, but he refused. Apparently he didn't want a specialist backs coach either, up to that Ireland limited success with the 13 man lineout and as soon as EOS was taken on, Ireland started winning.

Not completely true Sin. Ireland turned a corner with Gatland. We came quite close to winning a slam losing only to Scotland one year. We were improving and I for one would have liked him to be given a couple more years at the helm to continue the upward curve.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The first point is especially bizarre. If Gatland really was jealous of BOD and wanted to deny him his moment of Lions glory, why select him for the first two Tests, in the course of which the series was almost won?

Revenge is a dish best served cold....

I'll tell you why, because the one thing he couldn't tolerate was BOD captaining and taking the glory from Warbs, especially as the latter was a shambolic choice as captain (in part through lack of fitness/injury). There was no way he could sell the idea publically that AWJ was a better captain if BOD was to retain his place and he wasn't going to let him steal the headlines for a series win. The easier option was to leave him out and scapegoat him for the second test defeat.

He could accept BOD as a passenger but not the focal point of the tour or test. I have zero doubt that this was the case and its unfortunate that Davies has become implicated in what was a spiteful and shallow act by Gatland.

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The first point is especially bizarre. If Gatland really was jealous of BOD and wanted to deny him his moment of Lions glory, why select him for the first two Tests, in the course of which the series was almost won?

Revenge is a dish best served cold....

I'll tell you why, because the one thing he couldn't tolerate was BOD captaining and taking the glory from Warbs, especially as the latter was a shambolic choice as captain (in part through lack of fitness/injury). There was no way he could sell the idea publically that AWJ was a better captain if BOD was to retain his place and he wasn't going to let him steal the headlines for a series win. The easier option was to leave him out and scapegoat him for the second test defeat.

He could accept BOD as a passenger but not the focal point of the tour or test.  I have zero doubt that this was the case and its unfortunate that Davies has become implicated in what was a spiteful and shallow act by Gatland.

Yep, dropping him really kept him out of the spotlight.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The first point is especially bizarre. If Gatland really was jealous of BOD and wanted to deny him his moment of Lions glory, why select him for the first two Tests, in the course of which the series was almost won? That's the least effective sabotage I've ever seen.

I'd imagine the marketing and PR people warned him that it would not go down well with the public because Brian O'Driscoll was a big draw. There was some talk that Gatland didn't want to bring him on tour, but that the sponsors (RBS Bank) insisted that he was selected as he is a rugby superstar. No doubt they pointed out that they were not sponsoring a Wales tour of Australia.

GunsGerms wrote:

Sin é wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Also re Keith Wood. It is probably worth mentioning that Wood was one of the main reasons that Gatland got fired as Ireland manager. If I remember correctly Wood did not see eye to eye with him and this helped force the IRFUs hand as Wood was world player of the year around the time gatland got axed. therefore it is no surprise Wood was particularly critical of Gatland. I wouldnt worry too much about what he says anyway because IMO he isnt a great pundit.

Woody didn't see eye-to-eye with him because he refused to hire specialist coaches. Teams like England were all using Defence Coaches and wanted Warren to hire one, but he refused. Apparently he didn't want a specialist backs coach either, up to that Ireland limited success with the 13 man lineout and as soon as EOS was taken on, Ireland started winning.

Not completely true Sin. Ireland turned a corner with Gatland. We came quite close to winning a slam losing only to Scotland one year. We were improving and I for one would have liked him to be given a couple more years at the helm to continue the upward curve.

Eddie O'Sullivan came in as backs coach after the disasterous world cup in 1999 when even Munster (who were a very young team) beat Ireland on the way to it. Ireland beat Scotland in the next 6Ns and then we had BOD's hattrick in Paris - EOS was the backs coach for all of that.

GunsGerms wrote:Gatland had implied on numerous occasions that O'Driscoll was a contender for captaincy. It is certainly strage to make a guy captain, even if he did really well, that had only one cap as captain 4 years ago in a dire performance v Italy. 80 caps as captain v 1 cap as captain.

Are you sure you want to mention dire performances against Italy when dicussing O'Driscoll's suitability as captain?

Jeez,some Irish people have issues.

The Saint wrote:Jeez,some Irish people have issues.

I think some are just bitter that their favourite player didn't get to play in the emphatic win to clinch the series, forget what the Lions is about, forget the idea of a squad/team player. It was all some elaborate conspiracy from the start to give him false hope of finally winning a Lions series and take it away from him. Oh well, history will remember 41-16, without BOD and without POC.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Gatland had implied on numerous occasions that O'Driscoll was a contender for captaincy. It is certainly strage to make a guy captain, even if he did really well, that had only one cap as captain 4 years ago in a dire performance v Italy. 80 caps as captain v 1 cap as captain.

Are you sure you want to mention dire performances against Italy when dicussing O'Driscoll's suitability as captain?

Ireland werent captained by O'Driscoll in their one loss v Italy. What's your point?

GunsGerms wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Gatland had implied on numerous occasions that O'Driscoll was a contender for captaincy. It is certainly strage to make a guy captain, even if he did really well, that had only one cap as captain 4 years ago in a dire performance v Italy. 80 caps as captain v 1 cap as captain.

Are you sure you want to mention dire performances against Italy when dicussing O'Driscoll's suitability as captain?

Ireland werent captained by O'Driscoll in their one loss v Italy. What's your point?

Oh nothing, I was just putting the boot in.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Gatland had implied on numerous occasions that O'Driscoll was a contender for captaincy. It is certainly strage to make a guy captain, even if he did really well, that had only one cap as captain 4 years ago in a dire performance v Italy. 80 caps as captain v 1 cap as captain.

Are you sure you want to mention dire performances against Italy when dicussing O'Driscoll's suitability as captain?

Ireland werent captained by O'Driscoll in their one loss v Italy. What's your point?

Oh nothing, I was just putting the boot in.

Ha ha ha, thats really witty. Not.

Really quite petty and lame.