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

Only three players have scored two tries or more in a final. Name them??????

I would guess about Double or treble.

I'd say they had nearly as many in the last 2 years alone. Nathan White, Brad Thorn, Isa Nacewa for a kickoff. before I even get to Carl Heyman and his mates.

GunsGerms wrote:Did you know that there have been quite a few more Kiwi Hcup winners than Welsh ones.

There is also one more Scots with 10 winners and the same amount of Saffers if you dont include Richardt Strauss.

GunsGerms wrote:Only three players have scored two tries or more in a final. Name them??????

Sexton............

Leon Lloyd..... and....... dunno.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I would guess about Double or treble.

I'd say they had nearly as many in the last 2 years alone. Nathan White, Brad Thorn, Isa Nacewa for a kickoff. before I even get to Carl Heyman and his mates.

No there is only 13 Kiwis, not including Nacewa who doesnt count as he capped for another country.

Recently:

Nathan White
Rudi Wolf
Chris Masoe
Carl Heyman
Brad Thorne

No one lately anyway.

Sebastien Carrat Brive. 2 tries. The other two are right.

Howlett, Tipoki, Mafi

Easy one. Top scorer in a final is?

Sexton?

I do know that Sexton only loses out on the most points in a final to domingez v Leicester who was banging them over all day but scored no tries.

GunsGerms wrote:Easy one. Top scorer in a final is?

Jaysis. I had tjat answered before i even saw your question. 0)

Sorry. I was still back on the tries in a final. Never saw the kiwi question. Halstead and payne were saffers right?

GunsGerms wrote:Sebastien Carrat Brive. 2 tries. The other two are right.

would never have got that.

Bruce reyhana for nh is a defo kiwi.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Sorry. I was still back on the tries in a final. Never saw the kiwi question.  Halstead and payne were saffers right?

If Boss is Irish, so is Payne (Irish granny) - also toured with Ireland but never capped.

Halstead is a Saffer.

edit: Kelleher with Toulouse.

Byron "shag the coaches daughter" kelleher?

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Bruce reyhana for nh is a defo kiwi.

He never won a final did he?

Sorry. Thought he was there in 2010.

GunsGerms wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Bruce reyhana for nh is a defo kiwi.

He never won a final did he?

sorry mixing up your answers. thought you meant kelleher never won.

Was reyhana not there in 2000

No dont think so. However, current Connacht coach Pat Lam was playing.

Simon Grayson played 15 and scored lots of points.

*Sorry Paul Grayson

Sports sites blocked at the desk i am at. i will check later.

Guys, how many Irishmen have won more than one 6 Nations? I bet it isn't many .

The Saint wrote:Guys, how many Irishmen have won more than one 6 Nations? I bet it isn't many .

Yeah maybe but if the IRFU had central contracts and the player management program back in 1948 most of that team might still be playing.

True.

 775 posts on this thread
775 posts
You scroll on down
Bluffers all round
776 post on this tread  

 Do, do, do the funky gibbon...

OK, then:

How many Welsh men have 6 Nations wooden spoons?  

and if you have the time (its a lengthy list), name them!

And they're off!!

It's Shin A on the stand side, ahead of the saint by a nose.

can they make 20 pages?

Oh fock yeah!!!

Remember a band called the Shins?

Well at least we still have far less chokers than Ireland.

"Lads this is our best tournament in tirty-tree years... Oh wait here come France ."

 

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:And they're off!!

It's Shin A on the stand side, ahead of the saint by a nose.

can they make 20 pages?

Oh fock yeah!!!

You'd make 20 pages with the list of Welsh players that have Wooden Spoons  

rodders wrote: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.

You have zero doubt? You know that as certainly as you know the existence of gravity?

That, my friend, is a sizeable amount of paranoia, or simply a sizeable chip.

GunsGerms wrote:

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.

Na, it's pretty funny.

Do some posters really take a statement made to the media as a definitive assessment of character? Might Gatland have been motivating the Welsh payers when he talked of 'hating' (ill advised) the Irish. Arguably it is true. They're probably the most alike, in terms of background and skills; where the Welsh may dislike the English, it's generally thought to be due to a culture clash. Closer proximity to the Irish through playing them week in, week out in the Celtic League most likely exacerbated any animosity (Ronan O'Gara was not particular favourite I believe...?). Gatland was probably echoing what he heard in the camp, was throwing a grenade into the Irish camp, and probably enjoying the opportunity to wind up the country he used to coach. It was a throwaway comment intended to last no longer than the final whistle of that game. Would you analyse what Jose Mourinho said four years ago and try to beat him with it for an act he made today?

Likewise with the English comment. Again, it was a pretty stupid comment to make, but he's certainly Machiavellian in his ways, and perhaps this was him trying to spur on the Welsh team from which he was absent. Highly unprofessional if so, but possible nonetheless. I'd say this would be a far greater, and more explicit, grievance for Lions selections than a comment made three years ago, which is now totally irrelevant. But then Gatland went on to call up Twelvetrees, Barritt, Wade et cetera, and everyone was able to distinguish between a tongue-in-cheek media comment, and the man's actual rationale. Clearly that is a task too great for some.

On the subject of Machiavellian, he won the Tour. Get over it.

GunsGerms wrote:Yeah sure he did. How about this article prior to the third test. Is Wood to blame for this too?

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

Also can Wood be blamed for the vast majority of Telegraph readers believing Gatland got it wrong prior to the third test?

Poll results:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10156687/Poll-is-Warren-Gatland-right-to-drop-Brian-ODriscoll-for-the-Lions-final-Test-against-Australia.html

Should all these readers also apologise to Gatland? Never heard such nonsense.

The Telegraph is a conservative and Anglocentric paper. It's good to see you're willing to do a bit of research, it's just a shame you're not able to distinguish between the opinion of a journalist pandering to the readership, of which some will not be huge rugby fans, and fact.

I don't believe anyone is asking Keith Wood to apologise? What's the point? That's just another thing you, rodders, and Sin have made up as part of your huge straw effigy (next to the golden one of BOD).

GunsGerms wrote:If you are looking for sensational then Brian Moore is a prime example. Moore is also being hypocritical as he was one of the "journalists" that questioned the O'Driscoll decision prior to the third test:

On twitter:

BOD not even being on the bench is a strange call.

— Brian Moore (@brianmoore666) July 3, 2013

No he isn't. He was critical of the animosity to the decision, not the decision itself.

miaow wrote:


On the subject of Machiavellian, he won the Tour. Get over it.

Gatland won the tour?I thought it was the Lions that won a tour 2-1 when 3-0 was very achievable and playing some of the most boring uninspired rugby possible the vast majority of the time.It was hardly a roaring success and showed up his limitations as a coach who was incapable of molding a group of the best player that Britain and Ireland has to offer into a functioning team.Instead he was forced to go back to using his Welsh team,with a few additions who shored up the weaknesses that Australia have so often exploited against Wales in the past.

I think that the tour was a minor success since it halted the Lions losing streak but they were just lucky to finally be playing against pretty average opposition unlike the last 3 Lions sides.

miaow wrote:On the subject of Machiavellian, he won the Tour. Get over it.

If Machiavelli is a good role model for the Lions then perhaps Wood has a point about the change in ethos.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Gatland won the tour?I thought it was the Lions that won a tour.

He was the Lions coach. He was part of the collective that won. Your point is invalid.

The Great Aukster wrote:
If Machiavelli is a good role model for the Lions then perhaps Wood has a point about the change in ethos.

Yeah, for the fan. It's nice to think that the Barbarians and the Lions will continue to thrive and exist in the increasingly cut-throat world of professionalism. But that has very little relevance to the professionals. Gatland is pretty much the epitome of bottom line rugby. If the Lions wanted a repeat of the '09 style, of flair over graft, they should never have appointed him. Instead they got someone who had a good chance of delivering a win, which he did. I'd like to see more variety in Wales's game, as I would've during the Lions Tour, but since Wales have been relatively successful in the last three seasons, and the Lions won the Tour, you just sort of accept your lot; something certain posters seem incapable of because they clearly were never behind the Lions (which is fine, but then don't attempt to argue from the perspective of a Lions fan).

miaow wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Gatland won the tour?I thought it was the Lions that won a tour.

He was the Lions coach. He was part of the collective that won. Your point is invalid.

My point was that he was he was part of the collective that won,he didn't win it by himself.My point is the same as yours.

Not really. You were trying to pick me up on a grammatical, or semantic, point, but neither were right. It is equally true to say that BOD won the Tour, or JD2 won the Tour; you have contextual knowledge that Gatland was part of the Lions, and that he won it, just as you know the players those acronyms refer to, so really you shouldn't need the caveat "as coach of the team" to the statement "Gatland won the Lions Tour".

In any case, I posted before reading the other two pages and didn't realise this thread had sort of died, so I'll let it go not so gently into the night.

I cannot believe that this thread is still going. Reading it is like watching a Parapatecticouija, that is a little know bird that flies in ever decreasing circles tying to vanish up its own........

IAOB

miaow wrote:Not really. You were trying to pick me up on a grammatical, or semantic, point, but neither were right. It is equally true to say that BOD won the Tour, or JD2 won the Tour; you have contextual knowledge that Gatland was part of the Lions, and that he won it, just as you know the players those acronyms refer to, so really you shouldn't need the caveat "as coach of the team" to the statement "Gatland won the Lions Tour".

In any case, I posted before reading the other two pages and didn't realise this thread had sort of died, so I'll let it go not so gently into the night.

No I wasn't,I know what my point was.Gatland didn't win the tour neither did BoD,Warburton or Shane Williams.The Lions won and these men contributed some more than others and imo Gatlands contribution wasn't worth that much.

miaow wrote:

rodders wrote: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.

You have zero doubt? You know that as certainly as you know the existence of gravity?

That, my friend, is a sizeable amount of paranoia, or simply a sizeable chip.

Actually of late I've become quite the proponent of electric universe theory so I'm not all that convinced about the existence of gravity. I'm pretty certain about the BOD thing though.

Ha! Never mind eh, the bitter Irish still having a whine over their talisman being dropped from the side. Glad Jon Davies was picked ahead of BOD and the over reaction to it has been pathetic! It's done, it's over, the lions won the third test with out BOD, so suck it it up, get over it and move on. I thoroughly enjoyed the series victory and I look forward to the NZ series without all this whinging about BOD! Well done Warren Gatland and co, u did what u were picked to do, win the lions series. awesome

 

You're all wrong. The Aussies contributed more to the lions win than Gatland, Davies or Bod for that matter.

I have reluctantly tortured myself reading this thread after reading that it had been (briefly it seems) locked. I figured it would come down to the BOD v Davies selection issue...plus a few other things that have been through the wringer on here.

I have a question. How many of you were actually out in Aus for the tests?

I ask this because, while there was plenty of discussion amongst us about who should be starting in any particular game, once the 23 was announced it was pretty much "They're all Lions, let's get behind them."

I perfectly understand from watching back home you can form opinions based on TV; and let me tell you, from the seat I had high up in the stand at Melbourne, the whole frikking team were at fault for AAC's try. The Aussies pulled us every which way and suckered us. Not even SA or NZ could have prevented it. Credit to Aus for working that score.

I was on an Irish tour, and while there was disbelief at BOD being dropped*, everyone was behind the guys who took the field.

* Anyone thinking he should have been on the bench at least, hasn't a clue about how you set up your bench - replacement centres are very rare.

miaow wrote:

rodders wrote: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.

You have zero doubt? You know that as certainly as you know the existence of gravity?

That, my friend, is a sizeable amount of paranoia, or simply a sizeable chip.

Rodders, you've arrived at that conclusion? Because someone you admire was dropped from a rugby team? And you're certain? Ridiculous speculation that says more about you than Gatland. Gatland has never selected a back as captain in a test match.

Hound of Harrow wrote:I have reluctantly tortured myself reading this thread after reading that it had been (briefly it seems) locked. I figured it would come down to the BOD v Davies selection issue...plus a few other things that have been through the wringer on here.

I have a question. How many of you were actually out in Aus for the tests?

I ask this because, while there was plenty of discussion amongst us about who should be starting in any particular game, once the 23 was announced it was pretty much "They're all Lions, let's get behind them."

I perfectly understand from watching back home you can form opinions based on TV; and let me tell you, from the seat I had high up in the stand at Melbourne, the whole frikking team were at fault for AAC's try. The Aussies pulled us every which way and suckered us. Not even SA or NZ could have prevented it. Credit to Aus for working that score.

I was on an Irish tour, and while there was disbelief at BOD being dropped*, everyone was behind the guys who took the field.

* Anyone thinking he should have been on the bench at least, hasn't a clue about how you set up your bench - replacement centres are very rare.

S.A. or N.Z. would be very confident of defending a blindside attack with 4 defenders versus 3 attackers.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:I have reluctantly tortured myself reading this thread after reading that it had been (briefly it seems) locked. I figured it would come down to the BOD v Davies selection issue...plus a few other things that have been through the wringer on here.

I have a question. How many of you were actually out in Aus for the tests?

I ask this because, while there was plenty of discussion amongst us about who should be starting in any particular game, once the 23 was announced it was pretty much "They're all Lions, let's get behind them."

I perfectly understand from watching back home you can form opinions based on TV; and let me tell you, from the seat I had high up in the stand at Melbourne, the whole frikking team were at fault for AAC's try. The Aussies pulled us every which way and suckered us. Not even SA or NZ could have prevented it. Credit to Aus for working that score.

I was on an Irish tour, and while there was disbelief at BOD being dropped*, everyone was behind the guys who took the field.

* Anyone thinking he should have been on the bench at least, hasn't a clue about how you set up your bench - replacement centres are very rare.

S.A. or N.Z. would be very confident of defending a blindside attack with 4 defenders versus 3 attackers.

Absolute tosh - I have resisted to embroiled in this again but I cannot accept total blatant falsehoods.

Before the third test started we had 19 people preparing to have a brunch and 3rd test party watch, there was 14 scots, 3 English and 2 irish..... one of my friends pointed out the evidence (and not me by the way) I was of the opinion like a lot that Foxy Davies was at fault due to Bowes reaction and the one particular tabloid comment. When it was pointed out that it was clearly not Davies mismanagement that led to the try we all guffawed at him but when the 19 of us viewed the evidence.....second by second its quite clear that Davies was bawling at BOD to get back in the defensive line i.e. between DAVIES AND BOWE not at the rear of the breakdown..... HE JUST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE. 18 out of 19 of us before the second by second UTUBE passage thought Davies of the two was at fault by after it its clear by 19 rugby supporters he wasn't.

At the point when the ball came out of the breakdown to AAC that's 7.49...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETSHAnswos, BOD was still ushering and encouraging an absolutely knackered Lydiate to plug the gap AT THE REAR OF THE BREAKDOWN.

* at that point he couldn't even see the ball was just about to come out
* at that point there was a 3 on 2 BOWE/DAVIES v AAC/ASHLEY-COOPER/TOMANE

When the passage carries on 7.50 mins i.e. when AAC receives the ball,

* BOD is just about reacting and starting his sideways run to attempt a sideways tackle..... total mismanagement, he should have been covering the Aussie 13.
* Davies is actually closer to AAC than BOD and if he decides not to hold that area of defence then AAC has a straight run in as BOD must be 10 mtrs away from AAC at that point

Wind on FOUR SECONDS later and that equated to TEN METRES
* BOD just about makes contact with AAC......... what's the bloody point as the ball has already gone onto to a gleeful Ashley-Cooper who knows that Davies has had to cover both the Connors run and his delayed run
* the Oz 3-2 overlap is now five metres from the Lions try line and there is only 10 metres between AAC and the touch
* Davies has to attempt to realign and stop a rampaging Ashley-Cooper from 3 metres

Game over

As said by Sin E incorrectly it was Davies fault....... utter rubbish and as was the comment of a 4 on 3 cover by the Lions

As sensibly commented it wasn't just one man who was at fault but if you are to judge mismanagement and lacking awareness it certainly can't be laid at Davies door