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

rodders wrote:The reason he made 23 tackles is because:

a) Gatland picked a LH who couldn't scrummage
b) Our backrow got mullered on the deck
c) O'Driscoll was defending the 12 channel for much of the game

I've never heard such a load of tripe. Gatland is one bitter, nasty piece of work. Same with the nonsense about picking Farrell to spy on England.

1. Vunipola had won as many penalties as he'd given away by the end of that game.
2. Warburton also played very well.
3. Defending at 12 or 13, 23 tackles is still a suspiciously high number. I've never heard of Barritt making anything like that, and he's supposedly picked at international level purely for his defensive work.

I didn't spot O'Driscoll's legs going, but I wouldn't just dismiss it as rubbish because you don't like Gatland.

I believe that on rugby grounds the decision to drop BOD was correct. Hell if there had been another fit centre I would have dropped him after the first test.

I just wish Gatland would shut up about it though. He obviously finds press conferences tedious and so tries to liven them up by saying something "controversial".

23 tackles was Gatlands figure - officlal stats say 12 which is more then any other 2 backs put together (Davies made 7 and missed 3). Therefore what Gats says in the video is clearly false -as in that O'Driscolls channel was the target. Maybe he and Farrell were watching the wrong match video.  

Vianapolo conceded more penalties (4) than the entire Australian front row so not sure where you get that from.

Love the way people believe these urban myths because they want to. Thankfully the stats are there for all to see, as is the footage.

From watching Lions RAW BOD doesn't seem too distraught when the final whistle went.

All Gatland is doing is feeding the fire, he's not going to be charging up his own team by this continual chat but he will be giving the Irish lads a reason to perform.

fa0019 wrote:All Gatland is doing is feeding the fire, he's not going to be charging up his own team by this continual chat but he will be giving the Irish lads a reason to perform.

Oh Christ, this old chestnut again. God forbid that the Irish players have a reason to perform purely because they are representing their country.

I suspect they've moved on. The only people that seem all twisted about it still are a handful of Irish supporters.

They shouldn't need a 'reason' to perform, they are representing their country !

Risca Rev wrote:

fa0019 wrote:All Gatland is doing is feeding the fire, he's not going to be charging up his own team by this continual chat but he will be giving the Irish lads a reason to perform.

Oh Christ, this old chestnut again. God forbid that the Irish players have a reason to perform purely because they are representing their country.

I suspect they've moved on. The only people that seem all twisted about it still are a handful of Irish supporters.

And Gats himself I suspect - twisted up by the reaction.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I still see them as teeny bop 80's manufactured child pop cliche.
Not sure they'd bring much.

Not many people know that the B side of 'MMMbop' was 'Ebop'.

  

Risca Rev wrote:

fa0019 wrote:All Gatland is doing is feeding the fire, he's not going to be charging up his own team by this continual chat but he will be giving the Irish lads a reason to perform.

Oh Christ, this old chestnut again. God forbid that the Irish players have a reason to perform purely because they are representing their country.

I suspect they've moved on. The only people that seem all twisted about it still are a handful of Irish supporters.

Hmm I suspect if people started making up lies about some of the Welsh greats performances - Garth Edwards, Shane Williams, Gravel etc. - quite a few Welsh posters would pipe up to put the record straight.

I remember Ben Cohen getting death threats in the pre twitter days for the 'Shane who' comment for example .....

I've never seen so many differing lines of argument on why one player should have been selected over another, despite the call being heavily vindicated in the game itself, performance and result wise.

Roberts/JD2 are a very good combination, JD2 offers a very decent left footed kicking option that BOD does not, Roberts offers physicality BOD cannot, together they are a very functional centre partnership at test level with a histoy of good results. For these reasons alone, without even taking into account the faltering partnership between BOD/JD2 surely you'd all make the same call?

The majority of people who are still annoyed/fussing about this are only doing so cause Gatland keeps bringing it up, but I dont blame him, hes a cheeky guy, he had a lot of vitriole thrown at him from a lot of ways and in the real world, he was right. Its a prolonged I told you so.

Comfort wrote:The majority of people who are still annoyed/fussing about this are only doing so cause Gatland keeps bringing it up, but I dont blame him, hes a cheeky guy, he had a lot of vitriole thrown at him from a lot of ways and in the real world, he was right. Its a prolonged I told you so.

Which makes him look a clown, and reflects badly on Welsh rugby. I used to think that Gatland did not care what people thought of him - and hence why he makes so many silly public comments, because he was messing with people. Actually it looks as though he is pretty thin skinned and keeps seeking validation. slightly sad as really a series win and a final test thrashing is all the validation he needed.

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?

Ehhhh Sam Warburton was captain no? And if you were going to leave BOD at home I don't think Chris Robshaw would have been many peoples first choice at outside centre.

what has gatland actually done wrong . what has he done apart from winning the lions series . we Welsh are going to back him because he brought a lot of success to Welsh rugby . gatland keeping bringing bods dismissal up because Im guessing the press keep asking questions about it .

Comfort wrote:
Roberts/JD2 are a very good combination, JD2 offers a very decent left footed kicking option that BOD does not, Roberts offers physicality BOD cannot, together they are a very functional centre partnership at test level with a histoy of good results. For these reasons alone, without even taking into account the faltering partnership between BOD/JD2 surely you'd all make the same call?

The majority of people who are still annoyed/fussing about this are only doing so cause Gatland keeps bringing it up, but I dont blame him, hes a cheeky guy, he had a lot of vitriole thrown at him from a lot of ways and in the real world, he was right. Its a prolonged I told you so.

Yes and all that is fair enough - if the rational is Davies and Roberts are the preferred combo and it's Gats call then that's pretty cut and dry. People who disagree just have to suck it up.

But what we have is people doing career and character assassination based on false and misleading information - BODs legs had gone, BOD was terrible, Davies was brilliant etc. etc. - all unsupported by the facts and events at the time.

Gats is the main guy keeping it going, which isn't surprising as he loves a wind up and to be in the limelight.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:I used to think that Gatland did not care what people thought of him - and hence why he makes so many silly public comments, because he was messing with people. Actually it looks as though he is pretty thin skinned and keeps seeking validation. slightly sad as really a series win and a final test thrashing is all the validation he needed.

My take on it is that Gatland's quite comfortable with the call he made on O'Driscoll and, far from seeking validation, is just having a bit of fun by giving a different answer every time someone asks him the same question (over and over again).

I just think he is starting to make us look like really ungracious winners.

When you say 'us,' who do you mean?

It's a shame this is dragging on. What was in my mind a fairly straightforward rugby decision, perfectly justifiable albeit arguable both ways, seems to have become a never ending slurry of stupid comments and conspiracy theories.

I held Gatland entirely blameless for the original decision, and felt Wood and McBride were out of line, but I do think Gatland could have handled the aftermath far better by simply saying that it was purely a rugby decision in order to win the series, no alterior motives, and that should be the end of it. By continuously seeking to justify the decision on different grounds just keeps the Irish wounds festering. Some will never agree with the decision, regardless of the reasoning given. Best left alone Mr Gatland from here on.

rodders wrote:

Comfort wrote:
Roberts/JD2 are a very good combination, JD2 offers a very decent left footed kicking option that BOD does not, Roberts offers physicality BOD cannot, together they are a very functional centre partnership at test level with a histoy of good results. For these reasons alone, without even taking into account the faltering partnership between BOD/JD2 surely you'd all make the same call?

The majority of people who are still annoyed/fussing about this are only doing so cause Gatland keeps bringing it up, but I dont blame him, hes a cheeky guy, he had a lot of vitriole thrown at him from a lot of ways and in the real world, he was right. Its a prolonged I told you so.

Yes and all that is fair enough - if the rational is Davies and Roberts are the preferred combo and it's Gats call then that's pretty cut and dry. People who disagree just have to suck it up.

But what we have is people doing career and character assassination based on false and misleading information - BODs legs had gone, BOD was terrible, Davies was brilliant etc. etc. - all unsupported by the facts and events at the time.

Gats is the main guy keeping it going, which isn't surprising as he loves a wind up and to be in the limelight.

To be fair, its harder and harder to tell who's wumming and who's actually just a muppet on here anymore, thats why I try to ignore the majority of posts.

I get why there's still arguments going on around the way Gatland has acted, and thats fair game, I agree with VietGwent, hes created open season and made himself look like a bit of a fool. But this is Gatland, he was never gonna let it die once everything kicked off and he was proved right (he should of). I dont agree with the character assasinations aimed at BOD, but I didnt at the time when there was a lot more aimed at Gatland either. I dont agree with what Gatlands doing (or particularly like it), but you can see why when you look at his history and the abuse he received.

I just dont get the discussion around the selection from a playing perspective that still goes on, to me that book was closed on the final whistle.

funnyExiledScot wrote:It's a shame this is dragging on. What was in my mind a fairly straightforward rugby decision, perfectly justifiable albeit arguable both ways, seems to have become a never ending slurry of stupid comments and conspiracy theories.

I held Gatland entirely blameless for the original decision, and felt Wood and McBride were out of line, but I do think Gatland could have handled the aftermath far better by simply saying that it was purely a rugby decision in order to win the series, no alterior motives, and that should be the end of it. By continuously seeking to justify the decision on different grounds just keeps the Irish wounds festering. Some will never agree with the decision, regardless of the reasoning given. Best left alone Mr Gatland from here on.

Two things some people fail continously to understand which is really baffling:
Mud slinging has been from both sides in equal measures.
Its not just "the Irish" who disagree with the decision.

Personally I would have picked BOD and could give ample reasons why just as Davies selection can be justified. I am satisfied that BOD reacted well to the decision within the confines of the squad but should have said nothing to the media. Gatland's media skills have never been a strength either.

The whole debacle serves in my mind to once again raise the old chestnut as to whether a current B&I national coach should be picked to coach the Lions. Its too easy to accuse Gatland of showing bias towards Welsh players and his abrasive character and media witlessness lends itself to such accusations. This for me is the only debate that remains relevant or interesting.

funnyExiledScot wrote:It's a shame this is dragging on. What was in my mind a fairly straightforward rugby decision, perfectly justifiable albeit arguable both ways, seems to have become a never ending slurry of stupid comments and conspiracy theories.

I held Gatland entirely blameless for the original decision, and felt Wood and McBride were out of line, but I do think Gatland could have handled the aftermath far better by simply saying that it was purely a rugby decision in order to win the series, no alterior motives, and that should be the end of it. By continuously seeking to justify the decision on different grounds just keeps the Irish wounds festering. Some will never agree with the decision, regardless of the reasoning given. Best left alone Mr Gatland from here on.

To be fair to him though, he probably could never have prepared himself for this dragging on like it has. I agree he should leave it alone now, but if people are going to keep on asking him questions, then yeah you're probably going to get a bit fed up by it and start firing off random answers, particularly when you've achieved your sole objective of a series win.

If I were the WRU media blokey, I'd ensure that questions ref BOD and the Lions are off limits in the press conferences in Ireland game week.

I'm not sure Gatland's 'witless' when it comes to the media. He says stuff that the media think will motivate the opposition, but that doesn't mean it actually will. My take on it is that Gatland doesn't think any of it has any influence on the actual rugby - and he may well be right - so he likes to have a bit of fun with it.

Risca Rev wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:It's a shame this is dragging on. What was in my mind a fairly straightforward rugby decision, perfectly justifiable albeit arguable both ways, seems to have become a never ending slurry of stupid comments and conspiracy theories.

I held Gatland entirely blameless for the original decision, and felt Wood and McBride were out of line, but I do think Gatland could have handled the aftermath far better by simply saying that it was purely a rugby decision in order to win the series, no alterior motives, and that should be the end of it. By continuously seeking to justify the decision on different grounds just keeps the Irish wounds festering. Some will never agree with the decision, regardless of the reasoning given. Best left alone Mr Gatland from here on.

To be fair to him though, he probably could never have prepared himself for this dragging on like it has. I agree he should leave it alone now, but if people are going to keep on asking him questions, then yeah you're probably going to get a bit fed up by it and start firing off random answers, particularly when you've achieved your sole objective of a series win.

If I were the WRU media blokey, I'd ensure that questions ref BOD and the Lions are off limits in the press conferences in Ireland game week.

Gatland will relish bringing it up again pre Ireland game. There is no way he wont seek to stoke the fires.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm not sure Gatland's 'witless' when it comes to the media. He says stuff that the media think will motivate the opposition, but that doesn't mean it actually will. My take on it is that Gatland doesn't think any of it has any influence on the actual rugby - and he may well be right - so he likes to have a bit of fun with it.

Ill advised then. Whether it affects the outcome of the match or not it is hard to quantify but if Wales loses then he looks pretty stupid. In my opinion his comments can motivate opposition and this is always something to avoid.

But would it motivate them, or get them too fired up and distract them from executing their gameplan? Maybe he's cannier than we think.

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.

watch bod fly against Australia

Before or after he walks on water?

pretty clear that gatland loves stirring the pot. gatland was mightily peeved about the reaction at the time, so much so that it was pretty clear he didnt enjoy the final test victory. so i reckon he's going to keep trying to poke a stick in the eye of the irish for as long as he gets a reaction.

if the irish media drop it, then it will become a non-story.

There has been more written about the fall out in the British media. Are you saying if the Irish media who have been relatively quiet on the subject dont mention it again then the British media will follow suit?

I doubt it somehow.

Sad thing is, as I said earlier, on rugby grounds I agree 100% with Gatland, but I just wish he would shut the feck up.

GunsGerms wrote:There has been more written about the fall out in the British media. Are you saying if the Irish media who have been relatively quiet on the subject dont mention it again then the British media will follow suit?

I doubt it somehow.

yes, if the irish media stop asking him about it in press conferences i am sure he will stop talking about it. several examples just this week i believe.

Gatland comes to Ireland and the Irish media decides not to ask him about dropping Lord God Bod?

How many editors, TV presenters, would get the sack (and rightfully so) the next week?

I'm wondering what the man could be asked about, if BOD was off the list:

"Hmmmm...so...... so, how's Wales coming along then?"

We know Gatland... and he knows us. We dance around each other and enjoy the fight. What people seem to forget is that he's spent more of his rugby career in Ireland than in Wales.

GunsGerms wrote:Two things some people fail continously to understand which is really baffling:
Mud slinging has been from both sides in equal measures.
Its not just "the Irish" who disagree with the decision.

On the first point I completely agree, and I certainly don't mean to suggest that Gatland and those who agree with him have behaved particularly well in this either. Mud has been slung from both directions.

On the second point you are also correct, there were non-Irish rugby supporters who disagreed with the decision to select Roberts/JD2 rather than including BOD in the centres, however as far as I can see it's only really the Irish who still give a toss, particularly as the Lions were excellent in the 3rd Test and won the series. Whilst many non-Irish disagreed (and still do), I think it's mainly the Irish fans who still feel aggrieved. I sense the debate becoming more partisan in that regard.

Gatland will no doubt plonk his foot back in his mouth come the Wales vs Ireland game. Whether you see it as clever media strategy or ineptitude, he'll certainly cause a stir. You can bet on it.

I love all these Gatland-ytes who talk about vindication and rugby based decisions and that Gats has some sort of moral high ground.  

The populous opinion post test 2 was that Davies  - the Lions worst back by stats and general consensus- would be dropped in favour of Roberts and that BOD would captain in Warburtons absence.  

Once the test team was announced the general reaction of the world rugby media, outside Wales and Ireland - was of shock and surprise that O'Driscoll was dropped.

Now if BOD was as poor as some make out, and Davies was as good -  why the reaction at the time?

Where were all these Davies/Gats supporters in the run up to the 3rd test?

In the space of a few months BOD has gone from favourite to captain test 3 to a guy that shouldn't even have toured..... whereas Gatland has gone from a simpleton and uninspiring coach (Gatland ball anyone?) who cost the Lions the second test, to a Lions legend who showed incredible courage to drop BOD in the face of public outrage from the emerald isle....

It all makes a great story but is unfortunately heavily based on fiction.

Rodders - I'm not sure your summary is accurate when you talk about "populous opinion". Yes, the dropping of BOD was clearly the media story, hardly surprising given the comments from Wood and McBride (which was another story in itself really to have two Lions legends so strongly condemning the Lions management ahead of the 3rd Test), but there were plenty on here (myself included) who felt that it was actually quite a close call from a rugby perspective and happy for it to have gone either way. I personally backed the decision (at the time and still do), but always (worth stressing this point I feel) maintained that it was a close call, as I'm sure it would have been.

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...).

Wood and McBride aren't neutral so I don't care what there reaction was.

I am talking about the reaction of Carter (NZ), Carling (Eng), Barnes (Eng), Giteau(OZ) amongst many others ignoring Irish or Welsh reaction - although Garth Edwards was also critical.

Its all pretty verifiable what the reaction was.

Carter tweeted that BOD should be captain.

Sonny Bill's Big Dog BOD tweet was great!

While the likes of Dan Carter, Matt Giteau, David Campese and others high-profile rugby figures from the southern hemisphere registered their shock at the news yesterday, Sonny Bill Williams was obviously a little late to the party as he sent out the following tweet around 8.30am this morning Irish time.

First Quade and now the big dog BOD.. #Smh #LionsTour

— Sonny Bill Williams (@SonnyBWilliams) July 4, 2013



When somebody as well-known and as well-travelled as Sonny Bill calls O’Driscoll ‘the big dog’ it gives you a flavour of the esteem in which O’Driscoll is held, even though his reaction to what must be one of the biggest disappointments of his career showed just how classy an operator he is.

Oh and we had to check that #smh means ‘shaking my head’. Us too Sonny, us too.

Hat-tip to Tommy Keane for giving us the heads up on this one.

rodders wrote:Wood and McBride aren't neutral so I don't care what there reaction was.

I am talking about the reaction of Carter (NZ), Carling (Eng), Barnes (Eng), Giteau(OZ) amongst many others ignoring Irish or Welsh reaction - although Garth Edwards was also critical.

Its all pretty verifiable what the reaction was.

     

Think you answered your own question there (sort of...)... The media are after sound bites, and the "uproar" in dropping BOD was louder, ie. sold more papers, got more listeners/viewers, than the opposite side of the story. Hence the response from those they asked...

rodders wrote:Wood and McBride aren't neutral so I don't care what there reaction was.

I am talking about the reaction of Carter (NZ), Carling (Eng), Barnes (Eng), Giteau(OZ) amongst many others ignoring Irish or Welsh reaction - although Garth Edwards was also critical.

Its all pretty verifiable what the reaction was.

Some supported the decision to drop BOD, others didn't. I don't think you can claim any sort of consensus I'm afraid, and certainly not by listing five people.

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.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Sad thing is, as I said earlier, on rugby grounds I agree 100% with Gatland, but I just wish he would shut the feck up.

So just to be clear, you are repeating your call for Gatland to stop repeating himself?

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:Wood and McBride aren't neutral so I don't care what there reaction was.

I am talking about the reaction of Carter (NZ), Carling (Eng), Barnes (Eng), Giteau(OZ) amongst many others ignoring Irish or Welsh reaction - although Garth Edwards was also critical.

Its all pretty verifiable what the reaction was.

Some supported the decision to drop BOD, others didn't. I don't think you can claim any sort of consensus I'm afraid, and certainly not by listing five people.

Campese, Geech said he would have started him!

Anyway, Gatland is just a headcase. It seems when he was over spying for Wales scouting for the Lions, he asked Henshaw if he had any Welsh connections!

Now, that might have been a joke, but it just shows what was top of his mind - his day job in Wales.

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:Wood and McBride aren't neutral so I don't care what there reaction was.

I am talking about the reaction of Carter (NZ), Carling (Eng), Barnes (Eng), Giteau(OZ) amongst many others ignoring Irish or Welsh reaction - although Garth Edwards was also critical.

Its all pretty verifiable what the reaction was.

Some supported the decision to drop BOD, others didn't. I don't think you can claim any sort of consensus I'm afraid, and certainly not by listing five people.

Campese, Geech said he would have started him!

Anyway, Gatland is just a headcase. It seems when he was over spying for Wales scouting for the Lions, he asked Henshaw if he had any Welsh connections!

Now, that might have been a joke, but it just shows what was top of his mind - his day job in Wales.

I'd forgotten what you were like on this subject! I'm not going to continue this with you.

 

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:Wood and McBride aren't neutral so I don't care what there reaction was.

I am talking about the reaction of Carter (NZ), Carling (Eng), Barnes (Eng), Giteau(OZ) amongst many others ignoring Irish or Welsh reaction - although Garth Edwards was also critical.

Its all pretty verifiable what the reaction was.

Some supported the decision to drop BOD, others didn't. I don't think you can claim any sort of consensus I'm afraid, and certainly not by listing five people.

Campese, Geech said he would have started him!

Anyway, Gatland is just a headcase. It seems when he was over spying for Wales scouting for the Lions, he asked Henshaw if he had any Welsh connections!

Now, that might have been a joke, but it just shows what was top of his mind - his day job in Wales.

I'd forgotten what you were like on this subject! I'm not going to continue this with you.

 

You've had your moments yourself  

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:Wood and McBride aren't neutral so I don't care what there reaction was.

I am talking about the reaction of Carter (NZ), Carling (Eng), Barnes (Eng), Giteau(OZ) amongst many others ignoring Irish or Welsh reaction - although Garth Edwards was also critical.

Its all pretty verifiable what the reaction was.

Some supported the decision to drop BOD, others didn't. I don't think you can claim any sort of consensus I'm afraid, and certainly not by listing five people.

I'm not claiming a consensus based on 5 people. Are you being deliberately pedantic? Do you really expect me to find every quote? This is very easy to verify or rebuke using google....or look back at the threads here. Those supporting the selection were very much in the minority.

If my memory deceives me then I am happy to apologise but I'm fairly confident in my recollection of the events of that week.

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.