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.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

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

Far too much watching going on.

Spot on..and it wasn't by the guy who made his tackle 5 metres from the line

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

So you are saying that BOD (13) should have been covering AAC (13) then....... yes?

I mean Davies had called him (probably 30 seconds before the try) to get away from the ruck and come over to mark his man, unfortunately the captain was busy ushering Lydiate to cover him in the ruck....

"ahem Mr O'Driscoll I know you are the living legend but HELLO there are three guys here just waiting to hit us like a steam train and Just Tommy and me to cover them..... HELLO I know I am the rookie centre and god forbid I should call the captain to mark his man but...... Mr O'Driscoll Sir...

ME-109 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

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

Far too much watching going on.

Spot on..and it wasn't by the guy who made missed his tackle 5 metres from the line

Corrected that for you...... THE BALL HAD GONE!  

The Saint wrote: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?"

I think poor old flyhalf is the one who is obsessed about 'the tackle'. I don't give a toss and like most people bar yourself and flyhalf, are not going to change their mind about who actually missed the tackle.

I suggest you ask flyhalf to try and stop turning the dropping of BOD all down to BOD missing that tackle.

Sin é wrote:

The Saint wrote: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?"

I think poor old flyhalf is the one who is obsessed about 'the tackle'. I don't give a toss and like most people bar yourself and flyhalf, are not going to change their mind about who actually missed the tackle.

I suggest you ask flyhalf to try and stop turning the dropping of BOD all down to BOD missing that tackle.

I think sin e you will find that you and gunsgerms brought up the missed tackle I just attempt to stop that drivel

BOD a massively connected individual among Irish rugby feels like he is entitled to play when ever he wants is hardly as surprise!
The lad is MASSIVLEY overrated all is well catching the money ball from the likes of Isa Nacewa would make any average joe look good.

Look at him with average players around him "Ireland" hardly a world beater.

flyhalffactory wrote:

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

So you are saying that BOD (13) should have been covering AAC (13) then....... yes?

I mean Davies had called him (probably 30 seconds before the try) to get away from the ruck and come over to mark his man, unfortunately the captain was busy ushering Lydiate to cover him in the ruck....

"ahem Mr O'Driscoll I know you are the living legend but HELLO there are three guys here just waiting to hit us like a steam train and Just Tommy and me to cover them..... HELLO I know I am the rookie centre and god forbid I should call the captain to mark his man but...... Mr O'Driscoll Sir...

Flippin heck you can either read minds, lips, have super powers in hearing or are Warren Gatland making excuses.....hmmm

Look in the interests of harmony regarding the try we can always pretend there was an Englishman involved.

flyhalffactory wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The Saint wrote: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?"

I think poor old flyhalf is the one who is obsessed about 'the tackle'. I don't give a toss and like most people bar yourself and flyhalf, are not going to change their mind about who actually missed the tackle.

I suggest you ask flyhalf to try and stop turning the dropping of BOD all down to BOD missing that tackle.

I think sin e you will find that you and gunsgerms brought up the missed tackle I just attempt to stop that drivel

Nope. You brought up the tackle again. I mostly ignored your post to after there were at least 4 or 5 responses to you reposting the video AGAIN!

I keep telling you, I don't care how often you post it or deny it, only yourself and Saint think that the missed tackle was down to BOD.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:BOD a massively connected individual among Irish rugby feels like he is entitled to play when ever he wants is hardly as surprise!
The lad is MASSIVLEY overrated all is well catching the money ball from the likes of Isa Nacewa  would make any average joe look good.

Look at him with average players around him "Ireland" hardly a world beater.

Since when is Dan Carter Irish   He reckoned BOD should have been captain!

aucklandlaurie wrote: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.

There are no hard and fast rules to defending,players must identify the situation and make the correct decision depending on the situation.If BoD had shot up hard when JoC was making a looping run then JoC would have easily gone round him and scored a simple try.You can't just shoot up when there is a lot of space and your opponent is quick and agile enough to use it.

Sin é wrote:

The Saint wrote: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?"

I think poor old flyhalf is the one who is obsessed about 'the tackle'. I don't give a toss and like most people bar yourself and flyhalf, are not going to change their mind about who actually missed the tackle.

I suggest you ask flyhalf to try and stop turning the dropping of BOD all down to BOD missing that tackle.

You say that, yet you bring up a certain Tweet again. I'm sure we can come to a truce no matter what?

flyhalffactory wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

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

Far too much watching going on.

Spot on..and it wasn't by the guy who made missed his tackle 5 metres from the line

Corrected that for you...... THE BALL HAD GONE!  

Do you think Davies was at fault for this try?



He didn't make the tackle before BoD passed the ball and so in your view it must be his fault.

I'm more inclined to blame Cuthbert who left his man unmarked but if you feel Davies was at fault here we have a fundamental disagreement with how defense works in rugby.

flyhalffactory wrote:

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

So you are saying that BOD (13) should have been covering AAC (13) then....... yes?

I mean Davies had called him (probably 30 seconds before the try) to get away from the ruck and come over to mark his man, unfortunately the captain was busy ushering Lydiate to cover him in the ruck....

"ahem Mr O'Driscoll I know you are the living legend but HELLO there are three guys here just waiting to hit us like a steam train and Just Tommy and me to cover them..... HELLO I know I am the rookie centre and god forbid I should call the captain to mark his man but...... Mr O'Driscoll Sir...

Where and when does Davies call him over,you have repeated this with no evidence to back it up yet you ignore the video evidence of BoD telling Davies to cover AAC.Why the double standard?

The Saint wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The Saint wrote: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?"

I think poor old flyhalf is the one who is obsessed about 'the tackle'. I don't give a toss and like most people bar yourself and flyhalf, are not going to change their mind about who actually missed the tackle.

I suggest you ask flyhalf to try and stop turning the dropping of BOD all down to BOD missing that tackle.

You say that, yet you bring up a certain Tweet again. I'm sure we can come to a truce no matter what?

If you (or flyhalf) keep spouting rubbish, I'll keep rubbishing your comments.

Sin é wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The Saint wrote: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?"

I think poor old flyhalf is the one who is obsessed about 'the tackle'. I don't give a toss and like most people bar yourself and flyhalf, are not going to change their mind about who actually missed the tackle.

I suggest you ask flyhalf to try and stop turning the dropping of BOD all down to BOD missing that tackle.

I think sin e you will find that you and gunsgerms brought up the missed tackle I just attempt to stop that drivel

Nope. You brought up the tackle again. I mostly ignored your post to after there were at least 4 or 5 responses to you reposting the video AGAIN!

I keep telling you, I don't care how often you post it or deny it, only yourself and Saint think that the missed tackle was down to BOD.

Sin, I've never stated I blame BOD. I, that's me, The Saint, does not believe BOD or JD were solely at fault for the try.
Rubbish posts... Guess we can't call a truce then.

Its fairly simple

If a player tackles an opponent and he then is able to pass the ball and gain a competitive advantage then to me its a miss tackle, very much like if the opponent crashes through. If the ball has already been distributed to another then the player is tackled..... then how can it be classed as a tackle if the opponent hasn't the ball.

The stats seem to confirm this as sin e said.

Stats

flyhalffactory wrote:

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

So you are saying that BOD (13) should have been covering AAC (13) then....... yes?

I mean Davies had called him (probably 30 seconds before the try) to get away from the ruck and come over to mark his man, unfortunately the captain was busy ushering Lydiate to cover him in the ruck....

"ahem Mr O'Driscoll I know you are the living legend but HELLO there are three guys here just waiting to hit us like a steam train and Just Tommy and me to cover them..... HELLO I know I am the rookie centre and god forbid I should call the captain to mark his man but...... Mr O'Driscoll Sir...

Using that logic then North was obviously at fault for both of Folau's tries in Test 1.Yet anyone with an ounce of sense understands that defensive roles are fluid in general play and you mark the man in front of you,not just the player opposite you on the teamsheet.

flyhalffactory wrote:Its fairly simple

If a player tackles an opponent and he then is able to pass the ball and gain a competitive advantage then to me its a miss tackle, very much like if the opponent crashes through. If the ball has already been distributed to another then the player is tackled..... then how can it be classed as a tackle if the opponent hasn't the ball.

The stats seem to confirm this as sin e said.

Stats

No that's called an offload...but JDs was a missed tackle...simples.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

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

So you are saying that BOD (13) should have been covering AAC (13) then....... yes?

I mean Davies had called him (probably 30 seconds before the try) to get away from the ruck and come over to mark his man, unfortunately the captain was busy ushering Lydiate to cover him in the ruck....

"ahem Mr O'Driscoll I know you are the living legend but HELLO there are three guys here just waiting to hit us like a steam train and Just Tommy and me to cover them..... HELLO I know I am the rookie centre and god forbid I should call the captain to mark his man but...... Mr O'Driscoll Sir...

Using that logic then North was obviously at fault for both of Folau's tries in Test 1.Yet anyone with an ounce of sense understands that defensive roles are fluid in general play and you mark the man in front of you,not just the player opposite you on the teamsheet.

The point is a few posters are suggesting that Davies was at fault for the try, when he clearly called at BOD to cover the 13, might have been that BOD was marshalling the forwards to plug the gap and didnt hear him. But its pathetic to lay the blame at one man for the try.

Of course even worse when you are using it to promote another player

flyhalffactory wrote:
The point is a few posters are suggesting that Davies was at fault for the try, when he clearly called at BOD to cover the 13, might have been that BOD was marshalling the forwards to plug the gap and didnt hear him. But its pathetic to lay the blame at one man for the try.

Of course even worse when you are using it to promote another player

When did he do that,you say this over and over without proof when it's clear that BoD told Davies to cover AAc.
If BoD had covered the 13 who would cover JoC?

By the way I'm not promoting BoD over Davies.I would have personally picked BoD to start the 3rd Test but can understand it was a close decision and could easily be seen the other.I just really feel that Davies was at fault for the try and can't see how it's even possible to dispute.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:
The point is a few posters are suggesting that Davies was at fault for the try, when he clearly called at BOD to cover the 13, might have been that BOD was marshalling the forwards to plug the gap and didnt hear him. But its pathetic to lay the blame at one man for the try.

Of course even worse when you are using it to promote another player

When did he do that,you say this over and over without proof when it's clear that BoD told Davies to cover AAc.
If BoD had covered the 13 who would cover JoC?

By the way I'm not promoting BoD over Davies.I would have personally picked BoD to start the 3rd Test but can understand it was a close decision and could easily be seen the other.I just really feel that Davies was at fault for the try and can't see how it's even possible to dispute.

And that is what is so unbelievable.......... before BOD tapped Lydiate to get into the ruck, Davies clearly looks to Bowe then you can see him calling to BOD who moves slightly out and Lydiate moves closer to the breakdown. There is now a defensive GAP between the inside centre i.e. where the Aussie flyhalf JoC is going to run the line and the outside centre AAC just before the ball comes out of the scrum..... if Davies hadn't kept the line between JoC and AAC then the Aussie flyhalf could had had a direct line run to the try line.

If BOD had called (I think) Murray across, and then run to the 13 channel then we would have had three defender face on to the three Aussies.

Personally I didnt care whether BOD or Davies has been in the tests although I probably favoured BOD before the tour started (for the romance of his epic journey) to win the series and play in all the tests. But by the time the 3rd test came along it was clear who was the form centre of the 2013 Lions tour. The only question was should Roberts or BOD partner Davies.... I believe Gats got it spot on.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

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

Far too much watching going on.

Spot on..and it wasn't by the guy who made missed his tackle 5 metres from the line

Corrected that for you...... THE BALL HAD GONE!  

Do you think Davies was at fault for this try?



He didn't make the tackle before BoD passed the ball and so in your view it must be his fault.

I'm more inclined to blame Cuthbert who left his man unmarked but if you feel Davies was at fault here we have a fundamental disagreement with how defense works in rugby.

Soreleftshoulder

As I think you are completely missing the point, I thought I would watch the video and pass on my comments, however you tube come up with;

"the uploader has not made this video available for viewing in your Country".

What gets me is how theres actually some argument here that this incident had some link with the dropping of BOD. Hilarious.

The two couldnt work together. What was BOD's input as the senior of the two centres in terms of support, working together as a combination?

Judging by his comments- I have no source- just seen it repeated somewhere that JD 'could have done more'. Assuming the pair just went on with their individual responsibilities the mere fact that such a long winded argument that it was JD or BOD or JD or BOD at fault is confirmation that it is not only the players that can't work together as a pair (and JD and Roberst can) but the fans as well see it fit to blame the individual and not the pair failing to work together.

Hilarious...next we'll have Schmit drop him for Irelands first win of the AB's after BOD's what is it 10 times at at...then we'll really have something to commiserate the poor soul about. And again- it will be the 'fault' of the kiwi coach again...can't wait...

I really dont think O'Driscoll has any other option but to retire from International rugby just as the AIs are about to get underway, that way he will avoid the risk of having to be dropped by Schmidt. If he were to retire now, it would give the impression that he concedes that Gatty was right all along.

Sin é wrote:

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?

I don't know, I wasn't involved! Neither were you!

At the end of the day, JD played the final test and was instrumental in setting up two of the Lions tries. It doesn't matter if you guys think there was a conspiracy against BOD, the fact is he was dropped and the Lions smashed Australia when it mattered. End of.

At some time BOD will have to walk into the sunset and Schmidt will have to decide whether to play, bench or drop him in the knowledge that 2015 is just around the corner.

And it should be Schmidt's decision imo, not BOD's emotional farewell plans for his memoirs.

When BOD retires he'll release a statement to the press stating that he 'resents GOD for not giving BOD eternal youth'.

perhaps gatland like his thirteens in an attacking formation  rather being in the  breakdown giving penalties away and making warburtons job obsolete

Sin é wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The Saint wrote: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?"

I think poor old flyhalf is the one who is obsessed about 'the tackle'. I don't give a toss and like most people bar yourself and flyhalf, are not going to change their mind about who actually missed the tackle.

I suggest you ask flyhalf to try and stop turning the dropping of BOD all down to BOD missing that tackle.

You say that, yet you bring up a certain Tweet again. I'm sure we can come to a truce no matter what?

If you (or flyhalf) keep spouting rubbish, I'll keep rubbishing your comments.

And another thread will go all the way to 20 pages with nothing more constructive in it that

BOD is picked on for being Irish - No he isn't he is old and past it - No your mother is old and past it - No your old and past it - etc etc

Gats is picked on for dropping BOD - Gats dropped an out of form player - Gats dropped him harder because he wasn't welsh - BOD is past it - No your mother is past it - etc etc etc

Foxy is picked on for being Welsh - Foxy was picked on form - BOD and ROberts were good in a games versus clubs four years ago - BOD is past it - Your mum is past it - etc etc etc etc


Now come on guys lets face it, you all think the folk on the other side of the arguement are blinkered and deluded (and probably other words that I can't put on here), how about you just call it a day and allow one incident that happened months ago to be left behind.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

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

Far too much watching going on.

Spot on..and it wasn't by the guy who made missed his tackle 5 metres from the line

Corrected that for you...... THE BALL HAD GONE!  

Do you think Davies was at fault for this try?



He didn't make the tackle before BoD passed the ball and so in your view it must be his fault.

I'm more inclined to blame Cuthbert who left his man unmarked but if you feel Davies was at fault here we have a fundamental disagreement with how defense works in rugby.

That is not quite the same situation, there was no overlap there, and the welsh were all (bar Cuthbert) marking their man, meaning the ball could be shipped to the wing and Cuthbert should have chopped his man down.

gcBlues wrote:When BOD retires he'll release a statement to the press stating that he 'resents GOD for not giving BOD eternal youth'.

Can you resent yourself?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Now come on guys lets face it, you all think the folk on the other side of the arguement are blinkered and deluded (and probably other words that I can't put on here), how about you just call it a day and allow one incident that happened months ago to be left behind.

It's funny, that's just what someone who'd lost the argument would say.

In the three forms God manifests himself, family arguments can always break out especially when spirits are involved.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Now come on guys lets face it, you all think the folk on the other side of the arguement are blinkered and deluded (and probably other words that I can't put on here), how about you just call it a day and allow one incident that happened months ago to be left behind.

It's funny, that's just what someone who'd lost the argument would say.

Your mother lost the arguement  

Given that there is some acknowledgement by some fans that BOD might be a bit of a whinger who holds unnecessarily long grudges, and some acceptance that some BOD fans might be just a little obsessive and one eyed...

Does this throw the alleged incident of 2005 and the fallout from that into some new perspective?  Can some perhaps accept that all might not have been how it was made out, now?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Given that there is some acknowledgement by some fans that BOD might be a bit of a whinger who holds unnecessarily long grudges, and some acceptance that some BOD fans might be just a little obsessive and one eyed...

Does this throw the alleged incident of 2005 and the fallout from that into some new perspective?  Can some perhaps accept that all might not have been how it was made out, now?

I think your post reveals a lot more about you than BOD. Are you really bored in work?

This thread is real troll fodder.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Given that there is some acknowledgement by some fans that BOD might be a bit of a whinger who holds unnecessarily long grudges, and some acceptance that some BOD fans might be just a little obsessive and one eyed...

Does this throw the alleged incident of 2005 and the fallout from that into some new perspective?  Can some perhaps accept that all might not have been how it was made out, now?

you i think you are right. BOD fell over and dislocated his shoulder

I presume Tana and Kevvy arent on O'Driscolls christmas card list either.

I wonder if he sends a card to anyone at this rate.

Only Woody, Paul O'Connell and Sine e.

He probably figures : why send cards to other people on my own birthday?

GloriousEmpire wrote:He probably figures : why send cards to other people on my own birthday?

you fool, its his sons birthday!!!!! #getaclue

Sorry Ive never been big on Christian mythology.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Sorry Ive never been big on Christian mythology.

or rugby for that matter

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

gcBlues wrote:When BOD retires he'll release a statement to the press stating that he 'resents GOD for not giving BOD eternal youth'.

Can you resent yourself?

BOD resents GOD
And seeing as BOD = GOD
BOD resents himself for not blessing himself with eternal youth, so he is entirely to blame... 

Now, that's enough maths for today

"Brian O'Driscoll should not have hit out at Warren Gatland - It sounds like sour grapes."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10297284/Brian-ODriscoll-should-have-not-have-hit-out-at-Warren-Gatland-it-sounds-like-sour-grapes.html

Sin é wrote:

The Saint wrote: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?"

I think poor old flyhalf is the one who is obsessed about 'the tackle'. I don't give a toss and like most people bar yourself and flyhalf, are not going to change their mind about who actually missed the tackle.

I suggest you ask flyhalf to try and stop turning the dropping of BOD all down to BOD missing that tackle.

If you don't care, why was your only response to my suggestion that JD2 had a better tour overall, that JD2 missed "that" tackle and BOD didn't miss any??? Even if you are correct regarding the tackle, it's hardly a convincing response is it??

I'm talking about the tour as a whole. Not just one incident.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
"Brian O'Driscoll should not have hit out at Warren Gatland - It sounds like sour grapes."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10297284/Brian-ODriscoll-should-have-not-have-hit-out-at-Warren-Gatland-it-sounds-like-sour-grapes.html

I agree with the jist of the article, in particular the point about the dropping of BOD being the right rugby decision.

I do think the word "undoubtedly" is too strong though. Unlike Sin e et al I have the fortune of having two eyes and seeing the world in more than simply black and white (or just green). It would have been a close call, but I back Gatland for opting for the Roberts/JD2 combination. It worked well against the Tahs, and again in the 3rd Test. Good call.