Gatland on dropping O'Driscoll

First topic message reminder :

http://rugbyonslaught.blogspot.ie/2013/10/gatland-we-dropped-odriscoll-because.html

Speaking last week Gatland said that BOD was dropped because his legs had went in the last 15 mins of the second test and this was due to the Wallabies attacking his channel.

It seems strange considering a lot of players in the modern game only last that long and under less pressure

No9 wrote:

rodders wrote:Gatlands not witless at all, he's a very canny media operator.

Likewise the psychological aspect to his coaching is very good hence he's been so successful as a coach. Technically he's no genius but his man management is excellent - he loves creating a siege mentality in his team and much of what went on on tour, including the selections, were motivated by this imo.

I'm not sure this doesnt contradict your previous comments on Gats... So perhaps we can agree that Gats is a good "man manager", which is what you want from the HEAD COACH. You bring the best people together and delegate the individual duties (ie. technical stuff...).

To say Gatland is all of the things above is generally speaking accepted by most people. But that doesn't soften the memory of the Lions/BOD issue.  No, for me it clarifies it - and confirms my opinion of it.  

Gatland plays psychology, he man-manages, he creates media stirs knowingly "to take the pressure off his players" - or so the propaganda goes  .  And that's what he was engaging in when he dropped O'Driscoll.  Some of us think that this time O'Driscoll was the psychologic spark Gatland coldly used to stir the media pot on the final week and to create 'intent' - good and bad - in the players actually chosen.  
Some players were obviously driven to prove him right - and others were driven by more malevolent thoughts - que Sexton and his dedication at the end of the game.
But Gatland got his result and all is fair in love and war, even if it does mean knifing his own creation in the back.

rodders wrote:Those supporting the selection were very much in the minority.

Let's say you're right. What's your point?

We won, end of. BOD is over it, about time his whinging fan boys were too.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There was a lot of surprise at the selection, no question; but many of those who were surpised at / disagreed with the decision at the time have since said that they may have been mistaken / might have spoken too soon. And in any case, I don't think anyone's disputing that the decision not to select O'Driscoll caused a stir.

There's nothing wrong with changing an opinion LP - its people denying that there was ever a previous opinion to change which bugs me - there's something all too Orwellian about all this.....

munkian wrote:We won, end of. BOD is over it, about time his whinging fan boys were too.

The Lions won.

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:There was a lot of surprise at the selection, no question; but many of those who were surpised at / disagreed with the decision at the time have since said that they may have been mistaken / might have spoken too soon. And in any case, I don't think anyone's disputing that the decision not to select O'Driscoll caused a stir.

There's nothing wrong with changing an opinion LP - its people denying that there was ever a previous opinion to change which bugs me - there's something all too Orwellian about all this.....

Gotcha.

No9 wrote:How many on here have played and been dropped and the TEAM played better for it.. I know I have. As upset as you are at the time, it is a TEAM game, so being dropped is something you have to learn with. If you are still young, then you use it to work harder, cleverer, what ever it takes to earn your place back. If you are coming to the end of your playing days, you use it as a marker, maybe its time to hang the boots up. Either way, a player knows its not personal and decisions are made for the best of the team.

As for BOD, well the BETTER partnership was Roberts and Davies, BOD and A N Other was not as strong and there was "better" bench options, so BOD dropped for the TEAM.

And were you rolled out for a press conference just before it which lead everyone to believe (including yourself) that you were going to captain the team.

And I agree, Gatland main interest was the Team - Team Wales (with a bit of help from Corbs, Sean O'Brien and Sexton) actually getting a win in the SH.

SecretFly wrote:

munkian wrote:We won, end of. BOD is over it, about time his whinging fan boys were too.

The Lions won.

Obviously, was hardly the royal 'we'

Sin é wrote:

No9 wrote:How many on here have played and been dropped and the TEAM played better for it.. I know I have. As upset as you are at the time, it is a TEAM game, so being dropped is something you have to learn with. If you are still young, then you use it to work harder, cleverer, what ever it takes to earn your place back. If you are coming to the end of your playing days, you use it as a marker, maybe its time to hang the boots up. Either way, a player knows its not personal and decisions are made for the best of the team.

As for BOD, well the BETTER partnership was Roberts and Davies, BOD and A N Other was not as strong and there was "better" bench options, so BOD dropped for the TEAM.

And were you rolled out for a press conference just before it which lead everyone to believe (including yourself) that you were going to captain the team.

Don't you think it's possible that it was actually a close selectorial call between Davies and O'Driscoll and that at that point, Gatland was still considering O'Driscoll as a) playing, and b) captain?

And they didn't know whether Doc was fit or not either ?...

munkian wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

munkian wrote:We won, end of. BOD is over it, about time his whinging fan boys were too.

The Lions won.

Obviously, was hardly the royal 'we'

Hardly, indeed, munkian. It was meant as more of a 'you'.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Sin é wrote:

No9 wrote:How many on here have played and been dropped and the TEAM played better for it.. I know I have. As upset as you are at the time, it is a TEAM game, so being dropped is something you have to learn with. If you are still young, then you use it to work harder, cleverer, what ever it takes to earn your place back. If you are coming to the end of your playing days, you use it as a marker, maybe its time to hang the boots up. Either way, a player knows its not personal and decisions are made for the best of the team.

As for BOD, well the BETTER partnership was Roberts and Davies, BOD and A N Other was not as strong and there was "better" bench options, so BOD dropped for the TEAM.

And were you rolled out for a press conference just before it which lead everyone to believe (including yourself) that you were going to captain the team.

Don't you think it's possible that it was actually a close selectorial call between Davies and O'Driscoll and that at that point, Gatland was still considering O'Driscoll as a) playing, and b) captain?

Eh............................................................. No.

Sin é wrote:

No9 wrote:How many on here have played and been dropped and the TEAM played better for it.. I know I have. As upset as you are at the time, it is a TEAM game, so being dropped is something you have to learn with. If you are still young, then you use it to work harder, cleverer, what ever it takes to earn your place back. If you are coming to the end of your playing days, you use it as a marker, maybe its time to hang the boots up. Either way, a player knows its not personal and decisions are made for the best of the team.

As for BOD, well the BETTER partnership was Roberts and Davies, BOD and A N Other was not as strong and there was "better" bench options, so BOD dropped for the TEAM.

And were you rolled out for a press conference just before it which lead everyone to believe (including yourself) that you were going to captain the team.

And I agree, Gatland main interest was the Team - Team Wales (with a bit of help from Corbs, Sean O'Brien and Sexton) actually getting a win in the SH.

Silly point, as I'm not (was not) of high enough quality to play international rugby or even top league (ie. Pro 12). But if I were, and I also had the pay cheque these players have, I would have to take the rough with the smooth... You cant seek this level of public status and then cry when it doesnt go your way.

You 100% correct, Gatland's focus was on the team. But to say the Welsh team is just churlish, pathetic and deservers the contempt I will treat it with.

SecretFly wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Sin é wrote:

No9 wrote:How many on here have played and been dropped and the TEAM played better for it.. I know I have. As upset as you are at the time, it is a TEAM game, so being dropped is something you have to learn with. If you are still young, then you use it to work harder, cleverer, what ever it takes to earn your place back. If you are coming to the end of your playing days, you use it as a marker, maybe its time to hang the boots up. Either way, a player knows its not personal and decisions are made for the best of the team.

As for BOD, well the BETTER partnership was Roberts and Davies, BOD and A N Other was not as strong and there was "better" bench options, so BOD dropped for the TEAM.

And were you rolled out for a press conference just before it which lead everyone to believe (including yourself) that you were going to captain the team.

Don't you think it's possible that it was actually a close selectorial call between Davies and O'Driscoll and that at that point, Gatland was still considering O'Driscoll as a) playing, and b) captain?

Eh............................................................. No.

No, you're right. It's much more feasible that Gatland just wanted to be mean.

He certainly wasn't fretting about who he'd pick, Luckless.  He's an accomplished coach, isn't he?  Psychology, man-management, tactician.... all of those words.

Australia was a side you'd bury in your sleep - they were that poor (despite the acres of print used up on how 'potentially'dangerous they were.)  And the only question some were asking was why Gatland waited until the third game to play the game the Lions already had in their arsenal that would do so.

And if you think I'm being all retrospective and hindsight thinking on that one  - then go back and look at the threads.  Because that was the question many were asking before the last game... and I was one of them.

SecretFly wrote:He certainly wasn't fretting about who he'd pick, Luckless.

How can you possibly know that?

no-one ever buries australia in their sleep. they're like germany in football. no matter how much trouble they seem to be having on or off field, they are always a massive threat in big matches. they just dont seem to know when to roll over and die.

as opposed to most NH sides who all seem capable of complete implosion.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

SecretFly wrote:He certainly wasn't fretting about who he'd pick, Luckless.

How can you possibly know that?

...by the same rules that you know differently.

I think we're all using intuition here, Luckless. Unless some of us have a wire tap of Gatland's brain, that is.

True; but Gatland did say it was a tough call, which leads me to conclude it was a tough call.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Gatty has/had absolutely no obligation to answer to a few  Irish supporters as to why he dropped their idol.especially when they fail to grasp the role of a selector/coach.

Gatty's obligation is to his team, his coaching staff, and those that appointed him to the position.

The Mistake Gatty made was to take Brian O'Driscoll away in the first place, let alone make him Captain.... in hindsight maybe a role that could have been given to Chris Robshaw?

Why do you bother posting on things you have no clue about? You keep falling into the same trap and making yourself look stupid.

Youre a perfect example of a troll on the pro Gatland side of the divide that very few people actually care about.

quinsforever wrote:no-one ever buries australia in their sleep. they're like germany in football. no matter how much trouble they seem to be having on or off field, they are always a massive threat in big matches. they just dont seem to know when to roll over and die.

as opposed to most NH sides who all seem capable of complete implosion.

Then let me repeat it for effect then, quins.  
That Australian team, as constructed for the Lions tour, could have been buried in your sleep.

I said it months before the tour that the Lions had too much power and guile for the Australians when you looked at the players they could choose from across the four Unions.... I kept to that opinion in the build up to the tests.  

And then Gatland chooses to play kick-away, low tempo rugby against them in the first two tests....  A lot of people were saying it back then, not just me...media people too - Gatland was risking everything by not playing the furiously paced attack game he had at his disposal with the players he had.

But this thread is not about going over all that again - suffice to say, some of us believe Gatland always had the 3rd game gameplan at his disposal - regardless of who occupied 13.

No9 wrote:Silly point, as I'm not (was not) of high enough quality to play international rugby or even top league (ie. Pro 12). But if I were, and I also had the pay cheque these players have, I would have to take the rough with the smooth... You cant seek this level of public status and then cry when it doesnt go your way.

You 100% correct, Gatland's focus was on the team. But to say the Welsh team is just churlish, pathetic and deservers the contempt I will treat it with.

No9 do you have any problem with national coaches being picked to coach the Lions in general? Would you care if Lancaster for example got the next gig and picked a majority of English players. I think its a bad idea in general as it can encourage too many theories of bias.

Are you lot still going on about this?

In rugby terms the decision was meaningless. The match was won by the forwards, Halfpenny and Deans. You could have selected anyone in the centres and it wouldn't have made a difference to the basic result.

The bigger selection issue was why it took so long to start O'Brien, he should have been at blindside for all three tests.

In 50/50 calls a coach will nearly always choose his own man. What happens if he dropped his own player for a rival? What would he say in a few months time say when they next meet.... "obviously you think he's better then me".

I for one thought the dropping of BOD was as much to put confidence in Davies for his future then anything else.... in a 50/50 call had Gatland been Ireland's coach he would have kept BOD and vice versa if BOD had been Welsh.

Thats what undermined Henry with Wales and in the end caused his demise..... and even then his selections against his own players were justifiable and in fact he was overtly generous to many such as Charvis, Gibbs and Jenkins (the latter both totally crocked by then).

In terms of a solution... well either get away with tradition and hire a coach with no affiliation to any union (i.e. Mallett, White, Jones etc) or embrace the fact that he will have some bias.

I would say with some pride though that McGeechan could never be called as such. He was the national coach of Scotland and chose hardly any Scots in his latter tours, yet their were no massive calls of bias or player revolt.

fa0019 wrote:

I for one thought the dropping of BOD was as much to put confidence in Davies for his future then anything else.... .

That's the only real point this thread, and any subsequent thread on this topic, needs.  

That's the story, that's the suspicion, that's the forward thinking clinical coach, that's the end.

splenetic wrote:Are you lot still going on about this?

In rugby terms the decision was meaningless.  The match was won by the forwards, Halfpenny and Deans.  You could have selected anyone in the centres and it wouldn't have made a difference to the basic result.

The bigger selection issue was why it took so long to start O'Brien, he should have been at blindside for all three tests.

Bit harsh on Deans but agree with everything else.

splenetic wrote:The bigger selection issue was why it took so long to start O'Brien, he should have been at blindside for all three tests.

He played open side when he started and the two tests where the 7s shined, were with Lydiate at 6 (instead of Croft), so disagree with that.

Risca Rev wrote:

splenetic wrote:The bigger selection issue was why it took so long to start O'Brien, he should have been at blindside for all three tests.

He played open side when he started and the two tests where the 7s shined, were with Lydiate at 6 (instead of Croft), so disagree with that.

Lydiate and Croft didn't add anything that others couldn't have done just as well or better. Should have been Warburton & O'Brien on the flanks for the first test then Tipuric replacing the injured Warburton later in the series.

anyone else wishing the rugby hurry up and start  

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:anyone else wishing the rugby hurry up and start  

I know what you're saying Jimmy, this blog is starting to remind me of an old (ish) Bill Murray film.

What's done is done. It happens and be happy, you fecking won a series... believe me its rare.

fa0019 wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:anyone else wishing the rugby hurry up and start  

I know what you're saying Jimmy, this blog is starting to remind me of an old (ish) Bill Murray film.

What's done is done. It happens and be happy, you fecking won a series... believe me its rare.

GatBod Day?

GunsGerms wrote:

No9 wrote:Silly point, as I'm not (was not) of high enough quality to play international rugby or even top league (ie. Pro 12). But if I were, and I also had the pay cheque these players have, I would have to take the rough with the smooth... You cant seek this level of public status and then cry when it doesnt go your way.

You 100% correct, Gatland's focus was on the team. But to say the Welsh team is just churlish, pathetic and deservers the contempt I will treat it with.

No9 do you have any problem with national coaches being picked to coach the Lions in general? Would you care if Lancaster for example got the next gig and picked a majority of English players. I think its a bad idea in general as it can encourage too many theories of bias.

Thats a tricky one, as I actually think you need to pick the best coach for the job. No one ever accused Geech of picking too many Scots, and yet I feel Sir Clive did pick too many England players that where over the hill, especially off the back of a Welsh Grand Slam, Irealand finishing above England that year (2005), year before (2004) Ireland finishing above England. Did Gatland pick too many Welsh players ? I dont think so, off the back of back to back Championship wins (one being a Slam). I actually think the balance between the countries reflected the performances since the last Lions tour.

So should a national coach, take charge of the Lions... It depends on the coach ....

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Gatty has/had absolutely no obligation to answer to a few  Irish supporters as to why he dropped their idol.especially when they fail to grasp the role of a selector/coach.

Gatty's obligation is to his team, his coaching staff, and those that appointed him to the position.

The Mistake Gatty made was to take Brian O'Driscoll away in the first place, let alone make him Captain.... in hindsight maybe a role that could have been given to Chris Robshaw?

Why do you bother posting on things you have no clue about? You keep falling into the same trap and making yourself look stupid.

Youre a perfect example of a troll on the pro Gatland side of the divide that very few people actually care about.

Only one ..now thankfully smaller group...that look stupid here guns. How does Laurie not know what he's talk g about. How are you, clearly a bod fan above the lions side itself, get to be judge in that respect. The embarrassing thing is that Gatland feels he even needs to justify the selection. He doesn't. He did his job. Successfully. End of. No more here. For you to suggest trolling when the end justify the means in this case means you clearly do not have a clue about putting a winning side onto the field. Garland certainly has...many times. Guns? Don't see any evidence of that.

I think you can justify all the Wales guys that were picked however, as someone else pointed out where there is a 50/50 call the coach will usually go with what he knows which is probably why the final team was so Wales heavy and why there were so many Kiwi's in the original squad some of them surprise inclusions. I think on balance it shouldnt be a national coach.

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Gatty has/had absolutely no obligation to answer to a few  Irish supporters as to why he dropped their idol.especially when they fail to grasp the role of a selector/coach.

Gatty's obligation is to his team, his coaching staff, and those that appointed him to the position.

The Mistake Gatty made was to take Brian O'Driscoll away in the first place, let alone make him Captain.... in hindsight maybe a role that could have been given to Chris Robshaw?

Why do you bother posting on things you have no clue about? You keep falling into the same trap and making yourself look stupid.

Youre a perfect example of a troll on the pro Gatland side of the divide that very few people actually care about.

Only one ..now thankfully smaller group...that look stupid here guns. How does Laurie not know what he's talk g about. How are you, clearly a bod fan above the lions side itself, get to be judge in that respect. The embarrassing thing is that Gatland feels he even needs to justify the selection. He doesn't. He did his job. Successfully. End of. No more here. For you to suggest trolling when the end justify the means in this case means you clearly do not have a clue about putting a winning side onto the field. Garland certainly has...many times. Guns? Don't see any evidence of that.

Maybe the biggest problem is they don't know what the role of a centre should be! It's not stand around looking legendary...

Nothing like a O'Driscoll debate to draw the three biggest Kiwi trolls of the forum onto the same thread regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again. Such troll fodder its no surprise these threads keep raging on.

What do you mean Guns??? Glorious is a Kiwi???? And so is Gatland???

Glorious then knows how it works. Hit one of us and you hit all of us. Glad you're on side with the tribal principle Glorious

Nothing against BOD myself but I hope Schmidt picks him versus the ABs. If Garland is correct about oz targeting bods channel then its something the ABs will also target. For that reason, and for being ' a simple minded kiwi' which seems is what's required to drop bod....he just might drop him...to protect his very reputation.Not that more clued up Irish fans will see through that cuning plan

Taylorman wrote:Nothing against BOD myself but I hope Schmidt picks him versus the ABs. If Garland is correct about oz targeting bods channel then its something the ABs will also target. For that reason, and for being ' a simple minded kiwi' which seems is what's required to drop bod....he just might drop him...to protect his very reputation.Not that more clued up Irish fans will see through that cuning plan

Yawn. Anything interesting or informed to add?

Why do you keep referring to him as Garland?

"Nothing against BOD myself" I think you would have to be a complete idiot or exist in a vacuum to believe that.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:True; but Gatland did say it was a tough call, which leads me to conclude it was a tough call.

That sort of barnstorming out of the box thinking isnt appreciated around here luckless, you should know that.

We all know when a coach says a selection is tough, what he really means is it was easy and he just wanted to humiliate one player whilst mollycoddling his own for his own future.

BOD had never been on a successful Lions tour until he was dropped, fact.

Taylorman wrote:Nothing against BOD myself but I hope Schmidt picks him versus the ABs.

I hope he doesn't... his legs have gone ...oh shoite sorry wrong thread.....

 Sorry but thats actually more of a fact than anything else I've read on this here thread

Lets get to the crux of the matter, this was all about Gavin Hensons revenge.

Gavin Henson and Gatland are buds, we know this, BOD and Henson arent, cue this elaborate ploy at retribution for BOD's book. Its sent Gac off the rails ever since, check his playing career/noncareer should you not believe me.

Comfort wrote:Lets get to the crux of the matter, this was all about Gavin Hensons revenge.

Gavin Henson and Gatland are buds, we know this, BOD and Henson arent, cue this elaborate ploy at retribution for BOD's book. Its sent Gac off the rails ever since, check his playing career/noncareer should you not believe me.

So it was BOD's fault that we all had to suffer the TV show "overkill of an Oompa Loompa" time and time again. I knew it.  Well done Gats, one for the common man!

I think Comfort may be on to something.

Plus Gats was a Kiwi hooker and Mealamu was a kiwi hooker.... both dropped him unexpectedly ..... coincidence or what?

GunsGerms wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Nothing against BOD myself but I hope Schmidt picks him versus the ABs. If Garland is correct about oz targeting bods channel then its something the ABs will also target. For that reason, and for being ' a simple minded kiwi' which seems is what's required to drop bod....he just might drop him...to protect his very reputation.Not that more clued up Irish fans will see through that cuning plan

Yawn. Anything interesting or informed to add?

Why do you keep referring to him as Garland?

"Nothing against BOD myself" I think you would have to be a complete idiot or exist in a vacuum to believe that.

oh is it gatland...cant keep up with these overseas coaches...

No, never have had anything against BOD, its the blind obsession of playing him above any other logic that kiwis (albeit only 2 or 3 of us) jump on the bandwagon for. Irish fans will select BOD in any side right up until the very day he embarrasses himself on the field, wanting to extract every last moment out of the guy for their very own self fulfilling need...then when he has that day say...oh well..it was good while it lasted.

We will probably play Ben Smith and Nonu vs Ireland and head to head BOD has everything on Smith as a Centre but in terms of being a back in rugby in 2013 Smith is streets ahead and will likely show BOD up here.

So its a serious question- does Schmidt select BOD, or does he go for another centre this AI's, with a view to the upcoming 6N and WCup in 15. Schmidt is there for the future, not the past. Where are Irish fans placed in this respect?

And if you think this is still about trolling, or nothing new guns... then I would suggest you have truly lost the plot.

rodders wrote:I think Comfort may be on to something.

Plus Gats was a Kiwi hooker and Mealamu was a kiwi hooker.... both dropped him unexpectedly ..... coincidence or what?  

Low blow.... technically Gats wasn't a kiwi hooker though, just a bootboy for Sean Fitzpatrick. I think he just resented him!

 All good theories gentlemen. Well deduced.

But Steven Hawking has been working on an equation now for the last few months that would be more suited to the conditions of that week leading to the final test. And what he's come up with is certainly food for thought:

Davies+Red=Lion+Welsh.

SecretFly wrote: All good theories gentlemen.  Well deduced.

But Steven Hawking has been working on an equation now for the last few months that would be more suited to the conditions of that week leading to the final test.  And what he's come up with is certainly food for thought:

Davies+Red=Lion+Welsh.

very good fly...for we have no idea what '= green" represents..hmmm