BOD resentment for Gatland lingers

First topic message reminder :

Just seen an article on planetrugby where BOD has admitted that his disappointment with not being selected for the third test naturally carries with it some resentment for Gatland. He was quick to point out that Davies played a good game but feels that he could have equally contributed good things to that performance. http://www.planetrugby.com/lions/story/0,25883,16024_8907321,00.html

Is this a way of increasing ticket sales for the Wales Ireland match? Is this a journalist seeking out a story and BOD simply stating the truth? Is it wrong to make a statement like this now after the good way in which BOD conducted himself before and after the match? Does this resentment go further back than the Lions series to when Gatland was Ireland coach or when he made those comments before the Wales Ireland 6N match about how the Welsh view those games?

I'd like to know your opinion.

GunsGerms wrote:For me the tour was a big disapointment but not because of o'Driscoll getting a winning Lions farewell, which I must admit I thought before the tour would happen but because I geuninely thought the Lions should have blown the Aussies out of the water and I still think they would have if they had been much more positive in particular in the backs. The Lions performed better overall on the SA '09 tour IMO.

In the whole test series the Lions used two backs moves. The dummy runner move for Cuthberts try and the loop move for Sexton's try. With a bit more imagination and endevour I think the Lions could have run riot as North did when he scored his try.

In fairness, I often feel the same about Wales under Gatland. With a bit more licence to play, I think we could be better.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Sin e

Surely it should be the best of the 4 countries.... not the best of a represenative of the 4 countries i.e. 3 from each nation and then 3 coaches picks.

This is sport, professional sport. Ideas like that remind me of the old WW1 stories where POW british officers in German prison camps were allowed home to visit sick relatives on the condition they returned to their POW camp (with only their word as a British officer as bond).... An honourable idea but one best left to the history books.

Don't try and tell me that Davies is a better centre than Manu Tualagi, or that Mike Phillips is a better scrumhalf than Conor Murray. We have no idea if Stuart Hogg would have been better than Leigh Halfpenny (and he wouldn't have been needed if anyone other than Halfpenny was allowed to take the kicks). Simon Zebo is a much better winger than Cutbert, but he wasn't selected for the 1st Test. God only knows why an injured Tommy Bowe was used!

There you go again  
Making blunt statements generally isn't how a debate goes, you need to back them up with evidence. Cuthbert has been top try-scorer in the two 6N's he's played in and scored an important try in the first test. How can Zebo match this? Phillips has been a key part of three 6N's championships for Wales and has largely outplayed Murray when they've gone head to head. Granted Murray is a better option against Australia but to suggest he's already surpassed Phillips is laughable and disrespectful to the latter. Don't even get me started on Halfpenny and Hogg! The former was part of the backbone of the 3rd test win and rightly seen as the best 15 in the NH at this point.

Exactly! He can't match it if he isn't given a chance. Zebo was playing really well on tour and certainly played well against Wales. Just a reminder of how well he played.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT3MCAo1atU

You are deluded if you think Phillips was playing well (and outplayed Murray) against Ireland in the last 6Ns.  It was also very obvious in every test that Murray came on that the Lions started playing better than when they were playing with Phillips on the pitch.

I can't wait to hear you justifying why he was selected when his form was obviously so poor and particularly when Murray had key existing playing partnership with both Sexton & Heislip.

We all know that Gatland failed as a Lions coach to get players from different nations to win a test series. He reverted back to his Welsh gameplan and his Welsh players with a few players like Corbs & Sexton to plug the holes.

Oh I'm sorry, is Zebo an established try-scorer for Ireland? Two tries to his name in national colours would suggest not. Cuthbert has scored 10 in 19 appearances (9 for Wales, 1 for the Lions) so could rightly be called an established try-scorer at this stage. Naturally he was always going to be above Zebo in the pecking order, that isn't really a point of contention to anyone outside Ireland. Again it follows that your general statement that "Simon Zebo is a much better winger than Cuthbert" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You rely on single, isolated incidents (particularly the last 6Ns game between Wales and Ireland) as your defence of big statements like that, which really isn't enough. Generally not many would disagree that Cuthbert has looked the more impressive of the two at this level and was rightly in ahead of Zebo.

You use the same strategy in relation to Phillips and Murray, mentioning this year's game as your only example of a game where Murray has played better. The two games before that (RWC 2011 and 6Ns 2012) Phillips certainly came out on top. As usual you completely neglect my key points, mentioning only what is convenient to you and ignoring what isn't. Phillips has been a key part of Wales winning three 6Ns titles and reaching the RWC semis (in fact almost getting us to the final with a fine try). Can Murray boast as much or more?

You do realise that Zebo has only 6 starts for Ireland (against NZ, SA, Argentina, Wales, England & USA) and with that world famous flick, Ireland retained the ball and Healy went onto score against Wales. Then he also scored a try (remember that pass from BOD to Zebo that Davies couldn't cope with) on Cuthbert's wing. He also scored against Argentina. (He got injured with first touch of all against England in case you don't know).

If you are going on 2011 world cup form, BOD should have started against Australia then as Ireland beat Australia in the 2011 world cup ;)and Wales lost to Aus then (and every game that they have played since then).

The problem with Phillips on this tour was that he was in terrible form and the only reason he was starting was because he was Welsh.

The number of individual starts is irrelevant, you still provide no support to your claim that Zebo is "much better" than Cuthbert or that he in any way deserved to start any tests over Cuthbert. Oh and btw, Zebo didn't get that much less opportunity than Cuthbert during the warm-ups. Cuthbert started three games and scored three tries, going on to score in his only test start. Zebo started two, came on as a sub in one and scored nothing.

Anyway Cuthbert also scored in the 6Ns opener, coming in from the angle and scything through the Irish defence as is his trademark. Zebo didn't have any defenders to beat for his score, BOD put him in (and hasn't done anything of note since).

Keep telling yourself the bottom line, the rest of us will rest with the knowledge that Phillips was picked because he's more experienced and his contributions and achievements outstrip Murray's by a long way.

The funny thing about all this is even without green blinkers on I would pick BOD and Zebo over Davis and Cuthbert any day of the week.

It's interesting how when Cuthbert and Davis are not playing for Wales/Gatland they struggle to do anything of note and lose more than they win (are they lazy?) yet in contrast BOD and Zebo (esp) score and constantly win matches with their clubs. So if your argument is true then shouldn't they be making a bigger impact at club level, no?  Of course what you’re going to say is that it’s a “step up” to international level but what I would say to that is...  then shouldn't they be making a bigger impact at club level? If they are as good as BOD and Zebo

slane wrote:It's interesting how when Cuthbert and Davis are not playing for Wales/Gatland they struggle to do anything of note and lose more than they win (are they lazy?) yet in contrast BOD and Zebo (esp) score and constantly win matches with their clubs. So if your argument is true then shouldn't they be making a bigger impact at club level, no?  Of course what you’re going to say is that it’s a “step up” to international level but what I would say to that is...  then shouldn't they be making a bigger impact at club level? If they are as good as BOD and Zebo

Right, so Gatland should have ignored international form and based selection on regional / provincial form? That's a new one. I'm sure some pro-BOD posters have gone the other way and dismissed JD2's form in the early tour games because it's all about the Test series.

Guns - I see your point, personally I wonder what the stats for BOD and Foxy looked like after the first two tests, esp. the discipline. BOD did give a number of pens away, and in tight games that can be the difference. I am slightly bias to Foxy, and your to BOD, so i guess we will always make 50-50 calls for the man we know better.

The whole Gatland ball thing also works best with Foxy and Dr Jamie, than with BOD in there (for either man). So maybe it was a tactics thing and not a personal preference/favouritism thing.

Sin é wrote:Which 'one' SS, - Davies or North?

Is North not a Turk anymore?

George is a Saint now, grrrr.

Guns

It is your opinion that BOD was playing better than JD2.
AWJ has a whole lot more than zero experience as captain.

Considering those are the points, one is completely incorrect, the other is very subjective and when measured has shown that there was no concernable difference in BOD/JD2s performances in the tests.

The only issue anyone can have is perhaps the way Gatland handled the situation, and even that is based completely on conjecture and make-believe.

Honestly, this thread has made me feel very good about my ability to judge a situation on what actually happened, not what I want to believe happened.

Considering this is a very moot point, its been argued to death in a war of imaginery happenings and guessed intents.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Sin é wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Roberts had to play no matter what if remotely fit as he was the only inside centre taken in the original party and Barritt and Twelvetrees were there for a nothing game to prevent injury. The choice then came to BOD or JD. JD was chosen due to his national partnership and performances in the warm up games. Fair?

Not only that

JD also played well in the 1st test. The the decision-making and awareness when Warburton went off injured in the 2nd test clearly declined, position-ally we were a mess. One of the reasons to retain BOD for the 3rd and deciding test was as much for his leadership qualities and for his all around play in the middle of the park, and the last 15 or so mins of the 2nd test kinda put the decision to bed.

If that happened in the last 15 minutes of the 2nd Test, why did Gatland first of all have BOD at a press conference the following Monday and why was he intimating that he would be captain?

Perhaps because at that stage he was still considering selecting BOD and making him captain for the third Test.

Flyhalf just claimed it was a no brainer from the last 15 minutes of the 2nd test to drop BOD. If there was even a chance that he wouldn't have been starting, he shouldn't have been in that press conference. Why didn't he bring Sexton or AWJ - someone who was definately going to be in the 23?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Guns - I see your point, personally I wonder what the stats for BOD and Foxy looked like after the first two tests, esp. the discipline.  BOD did give a number of pens away, and in tight games that can be the difference.  I am slightly bias to Foxy, and your to BOD, so i guess we will always make 50-50 calls for the man we know better.

The whole Gatland ball thing also works best with Foxy and Dr Jamie, than with BOD in there (for either man).  So maybe it was a tactics thing and not a personal preference/favouritism thing.

I think the first two penalties were in the first 10 or 15 minutes of the match. Surprising that the No. 7 & captain wasn't the one discovering what the ref liked and didn't like.

Thank god you are beginning to realise now that Gatland can only coach one style and he was the wrong coach for a B&I Tour as he was unable to blend the players from the 4 different rugby nations. Hopefully he will stick with coaching Wales in future, now that he has been found out.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Guns - I see your point, personally I wonder what the stats for BOD and Foxy looked like after the first two tests, esp. the discipline.  BOD did give a number of pens away, and in tight games that can be the difference.  I am slightly bias to Foxy, and your to BOD, so i guess we will always make 50-50 calls for the man we know better.

The whole Gatland ball thing also works best with Foxy and Dr Jamie, than with BOD in there (for either man).  So maybe it was a tactics thing and not a personal preference/favouritism thing.

Re Bods penalties the Kiwi ref (Pollock?) since confirmed that at least one of the two was not a penalty and this was pretty clear at the time to a lot of Lions fans. The other penalty was given because BOD was adjudged not to be supporting his own weight which was very borderline. I think Davies missed tackle on AAC was a much bigger mistake.

Howler of the series though goes to Philips "effort" to get back for the genia/Folau try (unbelievable laziness) or Sexton's ghost tackle on Folau.

I've got a split view on this.

With respect to JD2 vs BOD it's very close, but I think JD2 has now overtaken him. Clearly in his heyday BOD was top dog but I only see glimpses of that these days at international level, whereas JD2 is a centre on the rise. Sure, he was awful in the 6 Nations opener, whereas BOD had a decent game, but thereafter the trend has been pretty clear to me, and come the final test I fully endorse Gatland for picking JD2. He picked the player at 13 he thought was best equipped to beat Australia, and over the course of the tour, I think JD2's form vindicated the selection (not to mention of course that he actually played well on the day.....).

As for Cuthbert vs Zebo, I personally think Zebo is the better player. However, Cuthbert had a very strong tour as well let's not forget (as well as an otherwise very strong strike rate at international level), and whilst Zebo had a great first game (despite fluffing his first attempted score), I think it's very easy to justify Cuthbert starting that 1st Test.

The selection of Bowe (rather than Zebo or Cuthbert) for the 2nd and 3rd Tests on the other hand I don't understand. Bowe is a very fine player, but neither fitness nor form (as a result of injury) were on his side.

I don't often find myself in agreement with Stephen Jones in the Sunday Times (and although he thought JD2 was the player of the tournament, I think 100% that Halfpenny was the correct call), but his article in the Sunday Times last weekend on this issue was spot on.

Comfort wrote:Guns

AWJ has a whole lot more than zero experience as captain.

He was captain for one test match four years ago. Wow thats a whole lot of experience. Thats as close to zero as you can get.

slane wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Sin e

Surely it should be the best of the 4 countries.... not the best of a represenative of the 4 countries i.e. 3 from each nation and then 3 coaches picks.

This is sport, professional sport. Ideas like that remind me of the old WW1 stories where POW british officers in German prison camps were allowed home to visit sick relatives on the condition they returned to their POW camp (with only their word as a British officer as bond).... An honourable idea but one best left to the history books.

Don't try and tell me that Davies is a better centre than Manu Tualagi, or that Mike Phillips is a better scrumhalf than Conor Murray. We have no idea if Stuart Hogg would have been better than Leigh Halfpenny (and he wouldn't have been needed if anyone other than Halfpenny was allowed to take the kicks). Simon Zebo is a much better winger than Cutbert, but he wasn't selected for the 1st Test. God only knows why an injured Tommy Bowe was used!

There you go again  
Making blunt statements generally isn't how a debate goes, you need to back them up with evidence. Cuthbert has been top try-scorer in the two 6N's he's played in and scored an important try in the first test. How can Zebo match this? Phillips has been a key part of three 6N's championships for Wales and has largely outplayed Murray when they've gone head to head. Granted Murray is a better option against Australia but to suggest he's already surpassed Phillips is laughable and disrespectful to the latter. Don't even get me started on Halfpenny and Hogg! The former was part of the backbone of the 3rd test win and rightly seen as the best 15 in the NH at this point.

Exactly! He can't match it if he isn't given a chance. Zebo was playing really well on tour and certainly played well against Wales. Just a reminder of how well he played.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT3MCAo1atU

You are deluded if you think Phillips was playing well (and outplayed Murray) against Ireland in the last 6Ns.  It was also very obvious in every test that Murray came on that the Lions started playing better than when they were playing with Phillips on the pitch.

I can't wait to hear you justifying why he was selected when his form was obviously so poor and particularly when Murray had key existing playing partnership with both Sexton & Heislip.

We all know that Gatland failed as a Lions coach to get players from different nations to win a test series. He reverted back to his Welsh gameplan and his Welsh players with a few players like Corbs & Sexton to plug the holes.

Oh I'm sorry, is Zebo an established try-scorer for Ireland? Two tries to his name in national colours would suggest not. Cuthbert has scored 10 in 19 appearances (9 for Wales, 1 for the Lions) so could rightly be called an established try-scorer at this stage. Naturally he was always going to be above Zebo in the pecking order, that isn't really a point of contention to anyone outside Ireland. Again it follows that your general statement that "Simon Zebo is a much better winger than Cuthbert" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You rely on single, isolated incidents (particularly the last 6Ns game between Wales and Ireland) as your defence of big statements like that, which really isn't enough. Generally not many would disagree that Cuthbert has looked the more impressive of the two at this level and was rightly in ahead of Zebo.

You use the same strategy in relation to Phillips and Murray, mentioning this year's game as your only example of a game where Murray has played better. The two games before that (RWC 2011 and 6Ns 2012) Phillips certainly came out on top. As usual you completely neglect my key points, mentioning only what is convenient to you and ignoring what isn't. Phillips has been a key part of Wales winning three 6Ns titles and reaching the RWC semis (in fact almost getting us to the final with a fine try). Can Murray boast as much or more?

You do realise that Zebo has only 6 starts for Ireland (against NZ, SA, Argentina, Wales, England & USA) and with that world famous flick, Ireland retained the ball and Healy went onto score against Wales. Then he also scored a try (remember that pass from BOD to Zebo that Davies couldn't cope with) on Cuthbert's wing. He also scored against Argentina. (He got injured with first touch of all against England in case you don't know).

If you are going on 2011 world cup form, BOD should have started against Australia then as Ireland beat Australia in the 2011 world cup ;)and Wales lost to Aus then (and every game that they have played since then).

The problem with Phillips on this tour was that he was in terrible form and the only reason he was starting was because he was Welsh.

The number of individual starts is irrelevant, you still provide no support to your claim that Zebo is "much better" than Cuthbert or that he in any way deserved to start any tests over Cuthbert. Oh and btw, Zebo didn't get that much less opportunity than Cuthbert during the warm-ups. Cuthbert started three games and scored three tries, going on to score in his only test start. Zebo started two, came on as a sub in one and scored nothing.

Anyway Cuthbert also scored in the 6Ns opener, coming in from the angle and scything through the Irish defence as is his trademark. Zebo didn't have any defenders to beat for his score, BOD put him in (and hasn't done anything of note since).

Keep telling yourself the bottom line, the rest of us will rest with the knowledge that Phillips was picked because he's more experienced and his contributions and achievements outstrip Murray's by a long way.

The funny thing about all this is even without green blinkers on I would pick BOD and Zebo over Davis and Cuthbert any day of the week.

It's interesting how when Cuthbert and Davis are not playing for Wales/Gatland they struggle to do anything of note and lose more than they win (are they lazy?) yet in contrast BOD and Zebo (esp) score and constantly win matches with their clubs. So if your argument is true then shouldn't they be making a bigger impact at club level, no?  Of course what you’re going to say is that it’s a “step up” to international level but what I would say to that is...  then shouldn't they be making a bigger impact at club level? If they are as good as BOD and Zebo

So you admit you have green blinkers on. Thank you, a confession of bias was more than I could have hoped. Additionally you can't comment on what life would be like without them as taking them off is out of the question  

The rest of your comment is just illustrative of the bull you manage to spin at random off the top of your head. Cuthbert burst onto the scene at the Blues and has been an ever-present try-scorer since under a far inferior coach in Phil Davies. Jon Davies was making waves at the Scarlets well before he broke into the Welsh starting XV, again under a less than great coach in Nigel Davies for much of that time.

Knowsit17 wrote:
The number of individual starts is irrelevant, you still provide no support to your claim that Zebo is "much better" than Cuthbert or that he in any way deserved to start any tests over Cuthbert. Oh and btw, Zebo didn't get that much less opportunity than Cuthbert during the warm-ups. Cuthbert started three games and scored three tries, going on to score in his only test start. Zebo started two, came on as a sub in one and scored nothing.

Anyway Cuthbert also scored in the 6Ns opener, coming in from the angle and scything through the Irish defence as is his trademark. Zebo didn't have any defenders to beat for his score, BOD put him in (and hasn't done anything of note since).

Keep telling yourself the bottom line, the rest of us will rest with the knowledge that Phillips was picked because he's more experienced and his contributions and achievements outstrip Murray's by a long way.

Zebo is an all round footballer - he can pass, offload, kick (has a great boot) and excellent under a high ball. Two of his Ireland caps were at fullback (against SA & Argentina) a position he has never played in before.

He is also a very confident player that thrives (and doesn't go into his shell like the Welsh players do according to Gatland  ) in the big occasion. He is the type of player that will turn a game or win it on his own.

As for Murray v Phillips - more relevant for the Lions - Murray has been on the winning side against Australia twice in his young career. He has now lost to Australia (in the 2nd Test). Thanks Gats. How many losses Phillips has against Australia.

Anyway, thanks for providing the very reason BOD should have been picked ahead of Davies.

Gatland got 'found out' because his one style of play got a record win for the Lions against Aus and won the series?
 
Seriously?

And Guns, keep digging......

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:
The number of individual starts is irrelevant, you still provide no support to your claim that Zebo is "much better" than Cuthbert or that he in any way deserved to start any tests over Cuthbert. Oh and btw, Zebo didn't get that much less opportunity than Cuthbert during the warm-ups. Cuthbert started three games and scored three tries, going on to score in his only test start. Zebo started two, came on as a sub in one and scored nothing.

Anyway Cuthbert also scored in the 6Ns opener, coming in from the angle and scything through the Irish defence as is his trademark. Zebo didn't have any defenders to beat for his score, BOD put him in (and hasn't done anything of note since).

Keep telling yourself the bottom line, the rest of us will rest with the knowledge that Phillips was picked because he's more experienced and his contributions and achievements outstrip Murray's by a long way.

Zebo is an all round footballer - he can pass, offload, kick (has a great boot) and excellent under a high ball. Two of his Ireland caps were at fullback (against SA & Argentina) a position he has never played in before.

He is also a very confident player that thrives (and doesn't go into his shell like the Welsh players do according to Gatland  ) in the big occasion. He is the type of player that will turn a game or win it on his own.

As for Murray v Phillips - more relevant for the Lions - Murray has been on the winning side against Australia twice in his young career. He has now lost to Australia (in the 2nd Test). Thanks Gats. How many losses Phillips has against Australia.

Anyway, thanks for providing the very reason BOD should have been picked ahead of Davies.

And for all that Zebo still can't match Cuthbert's try ratio, poor lad.

Phillips started two and lost none this tour. What does that tell you? It's one thing talking about how one would decide before the tour but we're not before the tour, we're after it. And Gatland had his way during it and came away with the series, proving that such arguments are of little to no relevance. If the series was decided on who had beaten the Aussies the most times beforehand, we definitely wouldn't have won. We did, thus all arguments in that direction are nullified.

Please explain how you can compare an aging BOD who, let's be honest, had one good outing for Ireland all year, to Phillips who made an important contribution to Wales retaining our 6Ns crown?

Knowsit17 wrote:Phillips started two and lost none this tour. What does that tell you?

Absolutley nothing. I tipped him to be the player of the tour. He was however, the worst player on tour IMO. His laziness at times was shocking.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:
The number of individual starts is irrelevant, you still provide no support to your claim that Zebo is "much better" than Cuthbert or that he in any way deserved to start any tests over Cuthbert. Oh and btw, Zebo didn't get that much less opportunity than Cuthbert during the warm-ups. Cuthbert started three games and scored three tries, going on to score in his only test start. Zebo started two, came on as a sub in one and scored nothing.

Anyway Cuthbert also scored in the 6Ns opener, coming in from the angle and scything through the Irish defence as is his trademark. Zebo didn't have any defenders to beat for his score, BOD put him in (and hasn't done anything of note since).

Keep telling yourself the bottom line, the rest of us will rest with the knowledge that Phillips was picked because he's more experienced and his contributions and achievements outstrip Murray's by a long way.

Zebo is an all round footballer - he can pass, offload, kick (has a great boot) and excellent under a high ball. Two of his Ireland caps were at fullback (against SA & Argentina) a position he has never played in before.

He is also a very confident player that thrives (and doesn't go into his shell like the Welsh players do according to Gatland  ) in the big occasion. He is the type of player that will turn a game or win it on his own.

As for Murray v Phillips - more relevant for the Lions - Murray has been on the winning side against Australia twice in his young career. He has now lost to Australia (in the 2nd Test). Thanks Gats. How many losses Phillips has against Australia.

Anyway, thanks for providing the very reason BOD should have been picked ahead of Davies.

And for all that Zebo still can't match Cuthbert's try ratio, poor lad.

Phillips started two and lost none this tour. What does that tell you? It's one thing talking about how one would decide before the tour but we're not before the tour, we're after it. And Gatland had his way during it and came away with the series, proving that such arguments are of little to no relevance. If the series was decided on who had beaten the Aussies the most times beforehand, we definitely wouldn't have won. We did, thus all arguments in that direction are nullified.

Please explain how you can compare an aging BOD who, let's be honest, had one good outing for Ireland all year, to Phillips who made an important contribution to Wales retaining our 6Ns crown?

Phillips (with Wales) has never beaten Australia. He has played against them 9 times! Gatland looking after his little buddy as he knows Wales are never going to do it on their own  

I know Phillips started 2 Lions tests - but he certainly wasn't picked on form for any of them.

Ah, but what an outing BOD had and in the Millenium statium as well!

That must have peed Gatty off!

given its a team game with 15 players involved, giving match stats attributed to individual players is a little misleading.

Mike Tindall started the world cup final in 2003 and left the stadium a world champion. Does it mean he was the best player ever, at the time, in his position etc etc.

Why would it pee Sir Warren off Sin? You said earlier, he had nothing to do with Wales in this year's tournament, as he was visiting other training camps. Which is it?

Come on Risca

Pretending that Gatland wasn't the Wales coach and had no viewpoint is as laughable as others saying he had an agenda against the man. He was the Wales coach in all but name. So he wasn't the coach for the tournament... he was right up until and right after. It not like Howley brought in different players and even Warburton's temporary demotion was almost certainly with Gatland's approval.

Just as much as this conspiracy junk on BOD. Well he played him in the first two.. if he had an agenda he wouldn't have played him in 2 out of 3 tests. Very few played/started in all 3.

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:
The number of individual starts is irrelevant, you still provide no support to your claim that Zebo is "much better" than Cuthbert or that he in any way deserved to start any tests over Cuthbert. Oh and btw, Zebo didn't get that much less opportunity than Cuthbert during the warm-ups. Cuthbert started three games and scored three tries, going on to score in his only test start. Zebo started two, came on as a sub in one and scored nothing.

Anyway Cuthbert also scored in the 6Ns opener, coming in from the angle and scything through the Irish defence as is his trademark. Zebo didn't have any defenders to beat for his score, BOD put him in (and hasn't done anything of note since).

Keep telling yourself the bottom line, the rest of us will rest with the knowledge that Phillips was picked because he's more experienced and his contributions and achievements outstrip Murray's by a long way.

Zebo is an all round footballer - he can pass, offload, kick (has a great boot) and excellent under a high ball. Two of his Ireland caps were at fullback (against SA & Argentina) a position he has never played in before.

He is also a very confident player that thrives (and doesn't go into his shell like the Welsh players do according to Gatland  ) in the big occasion. He is the type of player that will turn a game or win it on his own.

As for Murray v Phillips - more relevant for the Lions - Murray has been on the winning side against Australia twice in his young career. He has now lost to Australia (in the 2nd Test). Thanks Gats. How many losses Phillips has against Australia.

Anyway, thanks for providing the very reason BOD should have been picked ahead of Davies.

And for all that Zebo still can't match Cuthbert's try ratio, poor lad.

Phillips started two and lost none this tour. What does that tell you? It's one thing talking about how one would decide before the tour but we're not before the tour, we're after it. And Gatland had his way during it and came away with the series, proving that such arguments are of little to no relevance. If the series was decided on who had beaten the Aussies the most times beforehand, we definitely wouldn't have won. We did, thus all arguments in that direction are nullified.

Please explain how you can compare an aging BOD who, let's be honest, had one good outing for Ireland all year, to Phillips who made an important contribution to Wales retaining our 6Ns crown?

Phillips (with Wales) has never beaten Australia. He has played against them 9 times! Gatland looking after his little buddy as he knows Wales are never going to do it on their own  

I know Phillips started 2 Lions tests - but he certainly wasn't picked on form for any of them.

Ah, but what an outing BOD had and in the Millenium statium as well!

That must have peed Gatty off!

Unlikely as he was away on Lions duty and not coaching Wales at that specific time. Though as this thread can testify for, Gats certainly peed off BOD by not putting him on a pedestal and treating him like he's undroppable, such treatment as he is accustomed to in Ireland at this stage and which, based on the interview, has gone to his head.

GunsGerms wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Guns - I see your point, personally I wonder what the stats for BOD and Foxy looked like after the first two tests, esp. the discipline.  BOD did give a number of pens away, and in tight games that can be the difference.  I am slightly bias to Foxy, and your to BOD, so i guess we will always make 50-50 calls for the man we know better.

The whole Gatland ball thing also works best with Foxy and Dr Jamie, than with BOD in there (for either man).  So maybe it was a tactics thing and not a personal preference/favouritism thing.

Re Bods penalties the Kiwi ref (Pollock?) since confirmed that at least one of the two was not a penalty and this was pretty clear at the time to a lot of Lions fans. The other penalty was given because BOD was adjudged not to be supporting his own weight which was very borderline. I think Davies missed tackle on AAC was a much bigger mistake.

Howler of the series though goes to Philips "effort" to get back for the genia/Folau try (unbelievable laziness) or Sexton's ghost tackle on Folau.

Spiderman/ Comfort
You are not going to get anything with these two or maybe GunsGerms / Sin e are one and the same

At least he officially tackled the OUTSIDE CENTRE not like his fellow centre who should have been marking him but who was instead watching the sunshine behind the edge of the breakdown when the ball came out. Last person to react and couldn't get to JoC thus putting undue pressure on Davies/Bowe who should never have been put in that position of marking three players five metres out..... all because of a poorly positioned and totally unaware acting captain.

Beggars belief, how many times to you have to inform this person(s) that it was the lack of positional awareness by the then captain that led to Davies having to cover two men and led to Mr Gatland stating post match conference about game mis-management.

What a load of nonsense. You really believe that horse sh1t?

GunsGerms wrote:What a load of nonsense. You really believe that horse sh1t?

Its not what I believe its more what nearly everyone knows happened, and the result was Roberts replaced O'Driscoll for the 3rd test, AWJ was selected as captain, the Lions became a totally different team. Davies by nearly by every media communication in the rugby world was ranked as the best centre on tour and you are seen for what you are.

Like you believe that BOD had a better overall series than Davies...... you can grow veg with all that bull you guff

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Has Pollock admitted at least one mistake? I find it hard to believe that a ref would do that.

Risca Rev wrote:Has Pollock admitted at least one mistake? I find it hard to believe that a ref would do that.

Yes he did. Also the way he interpreted the breakdown was frustratingly very very different to Joubert and Poite(?)

Risca Rev wrote:Why would it pee Sir Warren off Sin? You said earlier, he had nothing to do with Wales in this year's tournament, as he was visiting other training camps. Which is it?

Because it made it more difficult to drop BOD and get as many Welsh men into the Lions as possible because he knows he can only coach 'Yes men' players. God forbid they would have a thought in their heads.

Pollock was dire. Hard to dispute that. The penalty he gave against BOD for legitimately competing for the ball on his feet was a crazy interpretation in my view.

Regardless, JD2 was still the best 13 on the tour in my opinion, sorry, make that a fact.....

flyhalffactory wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:What a load of nonsense. You really believe that horse sh1t?

Its not what I believe its more what nearly everyone knows happened,  and the result was Roberts replaced O'Driscoll for the 3rd test, AWJ was selected as captain, the Lions became a totally different team. Davies by nearly by every media communication in the rugby world was ranked as the best centre on tour and you are seen for what you are.

Like you believe that BOD had a better overall series than Davies...... you can grow veg with all that bull you guff

Even Gatland has admitted that the difference was Corbs. As POC said, 53 year old Ivan Yeats could have started in the centre for that Test and Australia would have lost.

Yes, but JD2 still played well in that 3rd Test. He wasn't the defining difference, as you say, Corbisiero was the biggest difference with the changes to the back row a close second, but JD2 still had a strong game.

I also think AWJ carried himself well as captain. Either that or he showed that an armband doesn't actually make a huge difference and is a completely overhyped concept. Either way, the Lions didn't suffer a "leadership issue" in that 3rd Test, so again, Gatland was vindicated by not drawing on BOD's captaincy experience. He was right, the Lions didn't need it.

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:Why would it pee Sir Warren off Sin? You said earlier, he had nothing to do with Wales in this year's tournament, as he was visiting other training camps. Which is it?

Because it made it more difficult to drop BOD and get as many Welsh men into the Lions as possible because he knows he can only coach 'Yes men' players. God forbid they would have a thought in their heads.

But he dropped him nonetheless. And he wasn't missed. Fact.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Pollock was dire. Hard to dispute that. The penalty he gave against BOD for legitimately competing for the ball on his feet was a crazy interpretation in my view.

Regardless, JD2 was still the best 13 on the tour in my opinion, sorry, make that a fact.....

Watch this from 08.24 BOD clearly gets his man guess who gets caught sleeping? Even the commentators get it

So how can he be the best centre on tour, yet let in a try like that? BOD never let any in!

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:Why would it pee Sir Warren off Sin? You said earlier, he had nothing to do with Wales in this year's tournament, as he was visiting other training camps. Which is it?

Because it made it more difficult to drop BOD and get as many Welsh men into the Lions as possible because he knows he can only coach 'Yes men' players. God forbid they would have a thought in their heads.

But he dropped him nonetheless. And he wasn't missed. Fact.

ah, but poor old Gats doesn't get to enjoy the win because of that call (and the criticism he has gotten).

slane wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Pollock was dire. Hard to dispute that. The penalty he gave against BOD for legitimately competing for the ball on his feet was a crazy interpretation in my view.

Regardless, JD2 was still the best 13 on the tour in my opinion, sorry, make that a fact.....

Watch this from 08.24 BOD clearly gets his man guess who gets caught sleeping? Even the commentators get it

So how can he be the best centre on tour, yet let in a try like that? BOD never let any in!

BECAUSE BOD WAS NEXT TO LYDIATE WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NEXT TO BOWE.

Because he reacted the last man of all when the ball came out of the breakdown

Because he (BOD) couldn't get to JoC in time, and the only reason Davies didn't go automatically to cover AAC is that there was a defensive GAP if JoC decided to go for the try line direct, even then JoC not been the fastest had enough time to delay the pass until Davies committed himself, he didn't even concern himself about BOD as he was out of the play. BOD hit JoC AFTER the ball was distributed.

How many times do we have to explain to you guys

Sin é wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:Why would it pee Sir Warren off Sin? You said earlier, he had nothing to do with Wales in this year's tournament, as he was visiting other training camps. Which is it?

Because it made it more difficult to drop BOD and get as many Welsh men into the Lions as possible because he knows he can only coach 'Yes men' players. God forbid they would have a thought in their heads.

But he dropped him nonetheless. And he wasn't missed. Fact.

ah, but poor old Gats doesn't get to enjoy the win because of that call (and the criticism he has gotten).

Au contraire, Gatland probably enjoys it all the more because of the vitriol (criticism is a tad light) from people who thought they knew better. Notice I used the word "thought" in there. No better way to vindicate yourself and egg the faces of those in question... all with one simple call.

Knowsit17 ... your talking out of your backside again.

However, the Lions' head coach was stung by the reaction to O'Driscoll's omission to the extent it will take weeks for what the 2013 squad has achieved to register.

'Maybe in a week or two I might get some pleasure out of this, but at the moment there isn't a lot of pleasure because of the amount of criticism that had been personally placed on me.

Sin é wrote:Knowsit17 ... your talking out of your backside again.

However, the Lions' head coach was stung by the reaction to O'Driscoll's omission to the extent it will take weeks for what the 2013 squad has achieved to register.

'Maybe in a week or two I might get some pleasure out of this, but at the moment there isn't a lot of pleasure because of the amount of criticism that had been personally placed on me.

He said he wasn't getting much pleasure at the time. What a man says and thinks are two different things. Unlike BOD, Gatland is probably restrained and professional enough not to let his personal sentiments spew out in public. I'd imagine that every stubborn BOD worshipper clinging to the illusion only sweetens the victory as it just means they're all the more sore as a result  

slane wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Pollock was dire. Hard to dispute that. The penalty he gave against BOD for legitimately competing for the ball on his feet was a crazy interpretation in my view.

Regardless, JD2 was still the best 13 on the tour in my opinion, sorry, make that a fact.....

Watch this from 08.24 BOD clearly gets his man guess who gets caught sleeping? Even the commentators get it

So how can he be the best centre on tour, yet let in a try like that? BOD never let any in!

Sorry Slane, but he let this one in.

The pre 2005 'BOD' would've hit O'Connor before the Aussie had taken 3 strides, driven him back and almost certainly have ripped the ball off him too.  

JD2 had no choice but to step in as he was watching a living legend allow an opponent to take 5, 6....7... strides with the ball, five metres out!  He must've wondered if BOD was going to let O'Connor jog all the way to the try line.

BOD was a fantastic player (albeit, it appears now, not much of a sportsman) and remains a good pro - some skills and as hard as nails etc. but the pace went years ago and reputation doesn't compensate for speed at test level any more.  Rather than being anti-Dricko - I think Gatland let sentiment get the better of him by deciding to take O'Driscoll on the tour in the first place.  He was always going to get found out against rugby athletes like AAC and JOC.

Knowsit ... he was peed off because of the criticism.

It will be interesting to see if he ever gets to enjoy the victory ... it would have been so much simpler if BOD had a poor game against Wales in the 6Ns - then he could have left him at home.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10164449/Lions-2013-Warren-Gatland-finds-it-hard-to-celebrate-after-vitriolic-abuse-for-dropping-Brian-ODriscoll.html

Casartelli wrote:

slane wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Pollock was dire. Hard to dispute that. The penalty he gave against BOD for legitimately competing for the ball on his feet was a crazy interpretation in my view.

Regardless, JD2 was still the best 13 on the tour in my opinion, sorry, make that a fact.....

Watch this from 08.24 BOD clearly gets his man guess who gets caught sleeping? Even the commentators get it

So how can he be the best centre on tour, yet let in a try like that? BOD never let any in!

Sorry Slane, but he let this one in.

The pre 2005 'BOD' would've hit O'Connor before the Aussie had taken 3 strides, driven him back and almost certainly have ripped the ball off him too.  

JD2 had no choice but to step in as he was watching a living legend allow an opponent to take 5, 6....7... strides with the ball, five metres out!  He must've wondered if BOD was going to let O'Connor jog all the way to the try line.

BOD was a fantastic player (albeit, it appears now, not much of a sportsman) and remains a good pro - some skills and as hard as nails etc. but the pace went years ago and reputation doesn't compensate for speed at test level any more.  Rather than being anti-Dricko - I think Gatland let sentiment get the better of him by deciding to take O'Driscoll on the tour in the first place.  He was always going to get found out against rugby athletes like AAC and JOC.

Actually, I don't think the pre-2005 BOD would have. His defence only got great around 2008/09 period.

Davies got it wrong. For further proof, the Lions Official stats have him down as missing 2 tackles in the 2nd Test and BOD down as missing Zero. Are you trying to sell the idea that the Lions put out rubbish stats, and correct them to support their coaches decision on why he dropped Brian O'Driscoll.

Nowhere in that article does Gatland give any indication that he's peed off. He says he's disappointed (who wouldn't be with that kind of support?) and that he wasn't taking much pleasure from the win at the time but peed off? Why would he be, he's just won a Lions tour regardless of how the haters choose to see it.

If you're that desperate to see Gatland peed off why don't you go and graffiti his car or something..

Knowsit17 wrote:Nowhere in that article does Gatland give any indication that he's peed off. He says he's disappointed (who wouldn't be with that kind of support?) and that he wasn't taking much pleasure from the win at the time but peed off? Why would he be, he's just won a Lions tour regardless of how the haters choose to see it.

So, in other words he would be much happier if he didn't get the criticism for dropping Brian O'Driscoll and one of the reasons he is getting that criticism is because BOD outplayed Davies in the 6Ns. [/quote]

If you're that desperate to see Gatland peed off why don't you go and graffiti his car or something..

I don't care whether Gatland is peed off or not. I'm just explaining why it would have been easier for him to drop BOD.

Sin é wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

slane wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Pollock was dire. Hard to dispute that. The penalty he gave against BOD for legitimately competing for the ball on his feet was a crazy interpretation in my view.

Regardless, JD2 was still the best 13 on the tour in my opinion, sorry, make that a fact.....

Watch this from 08.24 BOD clearly gets his man guess who gets caught sleeping? Even the commentators get it

So how can he be the best centre on tour, yet let in a try like that? BOD never let any in!

Sorry Slane, but he let this one in.

The pre 2005 'BOD' would've hit O'Connor before the Aussie had taken 3 strides, driven him back and almost certainly have ripped the ball off him too.  

JD2 had no choice but to step in as he was watching a living legend allow an opponent to take 5, 6....7... strides with the ball, five metres out!  He must've wondered if BOD was going to let O'Connor jog all the way to the try line.

BOD was a fantastic player (albeit, it appears now, not much of a sportsman) and remains a good pro - some skills and as hard as nails etc. but the pace went years ago and reputation doesn't compensate for speed at test level any more.  Rather than being anti-Dricko - I think Gatland let sentiment get the better of him by deciding to take O'Driscoll on the tour in the first place.  He was always going to get found out against rugby athletes like AAC and JOC.

Actually, I don't think the pre-2005 BOD would have. His defence only got great around 2008/09 period.

Davies got it wrong. For further proof, the Lions Official stats have him down as missing 2 tackles in the 2nd Test and BOD down as missing Zero. Are you trying to sell the idea that the Lions put out rubbish stats, and correct them to support their coaches decision on why he dropped Brian O'Driscoll.

Are you the absolute WUM of the century, or have you selective memory...... either way I would get off the juice mate, its getting embarrassing now.

BOD tackled JoC but he passed the ball............ so either
1. he MISSED TACKLE or
2. he didn't actually get to JoC in time i.e. JoC passed the ball before BOD could get to him

So "King of the Spin"....... did BOD miss the tackle or couldn't he get to JoC in time...

The coaches didn't dropped BOD because he didnt miss tackles, they dropped him because of his poor positional play, his poor awareness when made up to captain, and as a result Gatland didn't want Davies to have his centre partner missing in action and him covering his derriere all afternoon again

The clock is ticking 10....9....8....

Before I make this comment I must come out and admit I havent read every post on the Brian O'Driscoll versus warren Gatland threads, so i apologise if i am repeating something that may have been stated by others.

It is totally unacceptable for any mid field back when hard on defence (in the red zone) to slide, he must defend straight, one on one, ball and all. Brian O'Driscoll more and more often these days slides when defending close to his line.

Sin whether it's "JD is at fault" or "BOD was better than JD" or "Gatland dropped BOD in nasty way" can't you just give it a rest. You must surely get bored of repeating yourself, as I'm beyond bored of reading it. Can't we all "agree to disagree?"

Not sure its the case that peoples arithmetic is poor but 3 defenders, 3 attackers. 3/3=1. First defender tackles first player. That leaves 2 attackers and 2 defenders. Pay attention now. 2/2=1. Attacker no.2 has the ball and through differentiation or possibly quantum physics beats defender no.2.
Using the theory of relativity e=mc(squared). The welsh understanding is that BOD was clearly moving slowly relative to the attacker and that JD while approaching the speed of light was distracted by the slow motion inside him and therefore could not be blamed for the end of the laws of physics as we know them.

ME 109

If it was just a matter of equations, but if you use equations then you must take into consideration all factors of the equation.

If the first defender gives the first attacker space, then would you not agree that it gives the second attacker options, thus committing the second defender to cover more options?

Bottom line: When close to your line the mid field backs must defend straight and fast, its basic under 15s stuff.

Defense 101 watch your own man and trust your inside man to watch his...

ME-109 wrote:Defense 101 watch your own man and trust your inside man to watch his...

Far too much watching going on.