Sir Clive Woodward..... Champion of Welsh Rugby

Sir Clive Woodward defends Wales coach Warren Gatland

Warren Gatland has done an "amazing" job as Wales coach and does not deserve the criticism levelled at his playing style, says Sir Clive Woodward. Woodward also believes Wales, along with England and Ireland, will present a serious northern hemisphere challenge to the dominance of the Wallabies, New Zealand and South Africa in the 2015 World Cup, which gets under way in September.

He didn't mention criticism at Gatland's playing style. Though you have a point, as we don't see anyone criticising Ireland for playing like that; nor do we see anyone criticise Eng, NZ, SA, etc when the circumstances dictate that they play like that. Must be another anti-wales thing.

Yawn

The Saint wrote:He didn't mention criticism at Gatland's playing style. Though you have a point, as we don't see anyone criticising Ireland for playing like that; nor do we see anyone criticise Eng, NZ, SA, etc when the circumstances dictate that they play like that. Must be another anti-wales thing.

I'm told that counting from one to ten can promote calmness and aid rational thought. I expect that's why you're in a state of permanent angst and paranoia.

Infamy Infamy....

Clive likes to be in the limelight doesn't he?

As for Gatland doing an "amazing" job I don't think so. He's done "amazing" if doing well in the 6 nations is all that matters to Wales.

I don't think it should though - Gatland's record against SH sides is very poor indeed. If Wales want to aspire to being more than just a good side then they need to beating Australia and pick up their first win vs NZ.

Their first win vs SA in a while is a good thing but Wales need to kick on from that.

A semi final for Wales in the RWC should be the target. Anything below that and the RWC should be deemed a failure for Gatland.

Wales have an experienced side these days and the players to do well - need to make it count.

The Saint wrote:He didn't mention criticism at Gatland's playing style. Though you have a point, as we don't see anyone criticising Ireland for playing like that; nor do we see anyone criticise Eng, NZ, SA, etc when the circumstances dictate that they play like that. Must be another anti-wales thing.

I think you'll find there was plenty of criticism of Ireland for the gameplan in the early rounds of the 6 Nations. You really do have a rather large chip on your shoulder don't you.

Sir Clive takes all the credit for the world cup win in 2003, we all know it was down to the players, Martin Johnson, Lwarence Dallaglio, Richard Hill, well the whole England pack realy, oh and Mike Catt for coming on and turning that game around against us.

He has done NOTHING since, and jumped ship because he knew that all the players who got him his knighthood were retiring and he did nothing as far as planning for the future, his Lions tour showed us what we need to know about him, he is a fraud and if it was not for an extremley tallented bunch of players from 1996 to 2003 he would not even be in the news now.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

The Saint wrote:He didn't mention criticism at Gatland's playing style. Though you have a point, as we don't see anyone criticising Ireland for playing like that; nor do we see anyone criticise Eng, NZ, SA, etc when the circumstances dictate that they play like that. Must be another anti-wales thing.

I think you'll find there was plenty of criticism of Ireland for the gameplan in the early rounds of the 6 Nations.  You really do have a rather large chip on your shoulder don't you.

Just the early rounds? The criticism of Schmidtball needs to continue for another 2-3 years just to be on a level footing with the anti-wales criticism. Funny that these teams always get hated on when they're at the top though .

Everyone does criticise the NZ style it's true...

He was 'lucky' with the talent available. He also did more than had ever been done before to maximise that talent

No 7&1/2 wrote:Everyone does criticise the NZ style it's true...

Yeah, it's just so in sync it's too good to be true. They're always up to something.

I think Gatland has done a great job with Wales personally, which puts me in the very strange position of agreeing with Sir Clive.

I think I need to up my medication.

The Saint wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

The Saint wrote:He didn't mention criticism at Gatland's playing style. Though you have a point, as we don't see anyone criticising Ireland for playing like that; nor do we see anyone criticise Eng, NZ, SA, etc when the circumstances dictate that they play like that. Must be another anti-wales thing.

I think you'll find there was plenty of criticism of Ireland for the gameplan in the early rounds of the 6 Nations.  You really do have a rather large chip on your shoulder don't you.

Just the early rounds? The criticism of Schmidtball needs to continue for another 2-3 years just to be on a level footing with the anti-wales criticism. Funny that these teams always get hated on when they're at the top though .

1. Ireland
2. England
3. Wales



At the top. Ok.

LordDowlais wrote:Sir Clive takes all the credit for the world cup win in 2003, we all know it was down to the players, Martin Johnson, Lwarence Dallaglio, Richard Hill, well the whole England pack realy, oh and Mike Catt for coming on and turning that game around against us.

He has done NOTHING since, and jumped ship because he knew that all the players who got him his knighthood were retiring and he did nothing as far as planning for the future, his Lions tour showed us what we need to know about him, he is a fraud and if it was not for an extremley tallented bunch of players from 1996 to 2003 he would not even be in the news now.

well m'Lord, he thinks very highly of you as well.

gregortree wrote:well m'Lord, he thinks very highly of you as well..

I should blydi well hope so as well.

yes, he told me personally he has the highest regard for your opinions, as you do his.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

The Saint wrote:He didn't mention criticism at Gatland's playing style. Though you have a point, as we don't see anyone criticising Ireland for playing like that; nor do we see anyone criticise Eng, NZ, SA, etc when the circumstances dictate that they play like that. Must be another anti-wales thing.

I think you'll find there was plenty of criticism of Ireland for the gameplan in the early rounds of the 6 Nations.  You really do have a rather large chip on your shoulder don't you.

Just the early rounds? The criticism of Schmidtball needs to continue for another 2-3 years just to be on a level footing with the anti-wales criticism. Funny that these teams always get hated on when they're at the top though .

1. Ireland
2. England
3. Wales



At the top.  Ok.  

Some of us have tasted first place a lot more recently than piggy in the middle there

I think Sir Clive was an extremely inventive and innovative coach, and whilst he bordered on the mad professor at times and came up with a few bonkers ideas (Charlie Hodgson at 12??), much of what he did worked. He clearly deserves credit for 2003 and the successes beforehand (particular those wins in the SH), but I also agree that his failures are often overlooked as being part of some broader plan (England underachieved in 1999 and should never have choked those GS opportunities in 1999 and 2000). It is very tempting to say that 2003 cures all that went before, but for a genuine appraisal of his tenure you have to note his failures as well.

That was Engand. With the Lions it was different. The only credit I'll extend him there is that he tried something that hadn't been done before. It turned out to be the template for what not to do, and the Lions were humiliated. He didn't get the Lions, and should go down as the worst Lions coach of all time, regardless of how good the ABs were on that tour.

The Saint wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

The Saint wrote:He didn't mention criticism at Gatland's playing style. Though you have a point, as we don't see anyone criticising Ireland for playing like that; nor do we see anyone criticise Eng, NZ, SA, etc when the circumstances dictate that they play like that. Must be another anti-wales thing.

I think you'll find there was plenty of criticism of Ireland for the gameplan in the early rounds of the 6 Nations.  You really do have a rather large chip on your shoulder don't you.

Just the early rounds? The criticism of Schmidtball needs to continue for another 2-3 years just to be on a level footing with the anti-wales criticism. Funny that these teams always get hated on when they're at the top though .

1. Ireland
2. England
3. Wales



At the top.  Ok.  

Some of us have tasted first place a lot more recently than piggy in the middle there

Ah, silly me, I thought we were talking current, but you're obviously delving into the archives. Whatever floats your boat fella.

Take your pick Ozzy. This year, yester-year, night or day, rain or sunshine - Wales are hated on. I wish England would win something so everyone can starting hating you guys again. Seems a bit unnatural everyone not hating England!

Sir Clive wales

gregortree, When he won the WC I thought he was the real deal, I wanted him to take us down to New Zealand and do the same thing to them with the Lions as he did when he took England down there, but he made a total balls up of it, both with his selections, game plan, Alistair Fecking Campbellend, and I could not forgive him for it, he was just out of his depth because he did not have his English stalwarts anymore, then when he went to Southampton F.C to "teach" them about winning, they still could not win FFS, his book, do not talk to me about his book. The whole England team should have had a knighthood before him.

The Saint wrote:Take your pick Ozzy. This year, yester-year, night or day, rain or sunshine - Wales are hated on. I wish England would win something so everyone can starting hating you guys again. Seems a bit unnatural everyone not hating England!

Let's disect this shall we.

"Wales are hated on."

Really? Hated on or people want to discuss how they play and rightly critique aspects that the think are not great?

Gatlandball is a term used to describe a style of play. Does it have a derogatory overtone? Yes, possibly, as many, Welsh fans included, do not see it as being a style that will take Wales beyond being a top NH side and launch them into the realms of challenging the SANZAR nations. Nobody is suggesting they are not a good side, indeed SCW in his article is favourable when commenting on 'Gatlandball'. I see no hate in discussing this, merely talk about effectiveness and aesthetics of the chosen gameplan.

Now, you go on "I wish England would win something so everyone can starting hating you guys again. Seems a bit unnatural everyone not hating England!"

That seems unnatural to me. In the slightly abridged words of Nelson Mandela, "People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they
can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart".

I would suggest counselling my friend. Your unnatural need to hate the English appears to be eating you up from the inside out. Peace my friend. Peace.

LordDowlais wrote:gregortree, When he won the WC I thought he was the real deal, I wanted him to take us down to New Zealand and do the same thing to them with the Lions as he did when he took England down there, but he made a total balls up of it, both with his selections, game plan, Alistair Fecking Campbellend, and I could not forgive him for it, he was just out of his depth because he did not have his English stalwarts anymore, then when he went to Southampton F.C to "teach" them about winning, they still could not win FFS, his book, do not talk to me about his book. The whole England team should have had a knighthood before him.

Devil's advocate but success very often doesn't happen overnight. S'Oton are doing very well in the Premiership lately. Could you honestly say that he didn't have any influence on their current performance?

I think Sir Roger Moore sounds a bit better than Sir Clive.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Now, you go on "I wish England would win something so everyone can starting hating you guys again. Seems a bit unnatural everyone not hating England!"

That seems unnatural to me.  In the slightly abridged words of Nelson Mandela, "People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they
can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart".

I would suggest counselling my friend.  Your unnatural need to hate the English appears to be eating you up from the inside out.  Peace my friend.  Peace.

How the hell do you work that one out when England are my second team? You really need to stop taking yourself so seriously.

Your last statement is potentially libellous. Are mods still allowed to get away with that, or should I say, get away with it when it's aimed at Welsh posters?

The Saint wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Now, you go on "I wish England would win something so everyone can starting hating you guys again. Seems a bit unnatural everyone not hating England!"

That seems unnatural to me.  In the slightly abridged words of Nelson Mandela, "People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they
can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart".

I would suggest counselling my friend.  Your unnatural need to hate the English appears to be eating you up from the inside out.  Peace my friend.  Peace.

How the hell do you work that one out when England are my second team? You really need to stop taking yourself so seriously.

Your last statement is potentially libellous. Are mods still allowed to get away with that, or should I say, get away with it when it's aimed at Welsh posters?

I think his statement must have touched a nerve. Perhaps he was closer to the truth than you'd care to admit?

Count to ten.... oh hang on....

If you're unhappy with my posts Saint, and believe that they have breached the forum rules, then feel free to report them and one of the admins can adjudicate. I suspect however that the completion of that act will say a whole lot more about you than it will about me fella.

m' Lord, I would not argue with that. Sir C peaked in 2003, for which by the way he does deserve a fair amount of credit. The guy's crazy methods later were simply was not The Lions way.
I am expecting Sir Jonny to join him in due course with a gong, plus the Legion 'Honneur from a grateful France...

Gatlandball, Jakeball, every country has a coach or two who is criticised for a style of play, hell Jake White is one of the least popular coaches in SA, regardless of the fact that he has won a world cup.

Fact is any country has a style of play, it does not really matter whether it is criticised or not, it is what it is.

If I had the inclination to do some work, I would write out every criticism have for every nation in the way they play rugby, including the Boks and the mighty All blacks.

There was an excellent article on SCW during the 6N which highlighted that, amongst all the management speak (BS) that he comes out with, some of it actually may hit the mark (BTW the article focussed on the acronym T-CUP, Think Clearly Under Pressure etc). This is true of him in general - for all the crap some of it is spot on, but you have to suffer the drivel to get at the good bits. He saw himself as a messiah bringing business ideas to sport. The post-2003 failures (Southampton FC, Lions 2005) show this up as rhetoric, but he did lead an underachieving nation to the pinnacle of world rugby, and not by the luck of a cup competition but by being the best in the world at that time.

I believe his praise of Gatland is genuine regard for a man/team who he sees as having done a good job. Whether that praise is worth anything is another matter!

SneakySideStep wrote:and not by the luck of a cup competition but by being the best in the world at that time.

He was not the best, the players were, me or you could have been in charge of that squad, and they still would have won the WC, Martin Johnson was the one calling all the shots not Sir Clive.

LordDowlais wrote:

SneakySideStep wrote:and not by the luck of a cup competition but by being the best in the world at that time.

He was not the best, the players were, me or you could have been in charge of that squad, and they still would have won the WC, Martin Johnson was the one calling all the shots not Sir Clive.

Chicken and egg. They had the talent. They did the job on the pitch. He put the team together. He did a hell of a lot to develop that talent. All the hate won't change that

lostinwales wrote:All the hate won't change that.

Typical of you to find a way of trying to turn this into a slagging match, we get it, you do not like Wales, the Welsh or anything to do with my country.

How in the hell could I "hate" Sir Clive Woodward, I do not even know him, I just think he is a fraud.

SCW might big up his own impact and influence, but to suggest he did nothing is ridiculous.

Woodward was a big-thinker and quite revolutionary in terms of vision and the little percentages that make all the difference. He was less of a hands-on coach or master tactician. For all the mad ideas (just read some of the player autobiographies!) there were plenty that stuck and gave England the edge.

He put things in place to get the best out of a very talented crop of players and, yes, he was lucky in some ways to have those players (and especially so many born leaders) but I don't think he merely sat back and let Jonno et al take complete control.

He's a bit of a nob sometimes and (as a pundit) his team selections border on the surreal.

Ozzy3213 wrote:If you're unhappy with my posts Saint, and believe that they have breached the forum rules, then feel free to report them and one of the admins can adjudicate.  I suspect however that the completion of that act will say a whole lot more about you than it will about me fella.

I did before, on the sticky that had warned about fans behaviour during the 6 Nations. First game in, Englanders wumming, breaking the rules and an English mod joined in. So there's no point if it gets us nowhere, it'll just continue to drive people away from this forum. But now that you've mentioned it, can I put in a complaint about jimpy stalking my posts? It's really creeping me out...

Saint, what are you wittering on about now?

Cyril, he is still living off winning the WC with probably the best set of forwards we are ever likely to see in our lifetime and a set of backs that would more than hold their own in todays era, he struts around like a peacock and thinks because of his WC win that his opinion is gospel, why do we never speak about what happened after 2003 ? If he had just finished there and then I would still be in belief that he is the best coach to come out of the NH but in fact he is not even close, he was lucky enough to be in charge of one of the first England sides to embrace professionalism properly, for me what Roger Uttley achieved in 1991 was far more impressive, England should have won that WC if they had not let Campese get inside their heads.

Sir Clive Woodward is what Steve Hansen is now, lucky enough to have the best players in the world at his disposal, I could have taken that 2003 side out to Australia and walked away with a WC.

Dowlais,

You do make some good points, however:

there's a scale where:

0 is where you see SCW's influence
100 is where SCW see's SCW's influence

I think the answer is somewhere in between

Cyril wrote:I think the answer is somewhere in between

Yes ok, Cyril, I suppose you are right, he did have a professional mindset, and he was one of the first proper professional coaches, so out of that 100 I will give him 25, a quarter, the other three quarters, 75 was down to having the best players in the world at his disposal.

Words of wisdom Cyril. LD - 25 is too low. Yes, he had great players, but he had to pick the team and mould them into a winning side. One of his better attributes was his willingness to change (and try to improve) a winning team - witness Josh Lewsey's elevation to the starting 15.

SneakySideStep wrote:Words of wisdom Cyril. LD - 25 is too low. Yes, he had great players, but he had to pick the team and mould them into a winning side. One of his better attributes was his willingness to change (and try to improve) a winning team - witness Josh Lewsey's elevation to the starting 15.

He would have had a 100, if he had just finished after the WC, but what came afterwards was to be his undoing, the real Sir Clive if you like, without his stalwarts around him he stuck out like a thumb, and was shown to not be the rugby god he had us all and still tries to have us all to believe.

LD - no one is arguing with you that his legacy is not perfect. He was part of a team and he helped shape the destiny of that team. Some of his ideas were silly - others were useful. He deserves credit for trying things rather than resting on his laurels.

SneakySideStep wrote:He deserves credit for trying things rather than resting on his laurels..

he did not do that though did he, he finished with England not long after, when he knew he was in a no win situation, then buggered the Lions up, if he was as good as he would have us beleive, he would have done a lot better on that tour, and he could still be coaching now, but he isn't. England have thrown a lot of coaches onto the fire because of what he left behind, he is not to old, why is he not doing any coaching these days ?

Cyril wrote:Saint, what are you wittering on about now?

Faux indignance, that's what.

LordDowlais wrote:

SneakySideStep wrote:He deserves credit for trying things rather than resting on his laurels..

he did not do that though did he, he finished with England not long after, when he knew he was in a no win situation, then buggered the Lions up, if he was as good as he would have us beleive, he would have done a lot better on that tour, and he could still be coaching now, but he isn't. England have thrown a lot of coaches onto the fire because of what he left behind, he is not to old, why is he not doing any coaching these days ?

Hardly.

He and his team had reached the pinnacle of their careers. Quite a lot of the players called it a day not long afterwards, and Woodward himself recognised that it was time to move on for the good and benefit of all. Perhaps it was the wrong decision, but I sincerely doubt it was based upon an impending sense of doom. Quite a lot of managers in big companies move on regularly, its very common - once one has achieved one's goals, or achieved a strategic milestone. The subsequent underachievement in English rugby had little to do with him and more to do with complacency and a lack of investment in grass roots rugby by the RFU than anything.

Given his achievements, his choice as coach for the Lions was probably not a bad one. His team selection was flawed and that aspect of his character was exposed. As to why he isn't coaching these days - well, that's really none of our business. Perhaps he simply doesn't want to - have you thought about that?

I do find it amazing that people put all blame solely on Woodward for the Lions in 2005. I think no-one appreciates how good New Zealand were that year. For all the calls for more Welsh and Irish in the Lions team, don't forget New Zealand stuck 40 points on Ireland and Wales each in the 2005 AIs. It was only England that gave them a competitive match that year, and they were still squarely beaten by the end.

Graham Henry couldn't win a series in 2001 with better players against a worse team. Don't know why anyone expected anything other than 3-0. Yes they were very poor, and Woodwards heart wasn't in it and thought he could just rely on tried and tested, but the players were very average at the time, and had lost O'Driscoll, Hill and Dallaglio by the end of the first half of the first test.

You could throw accusations of why is he not coaching to all pundits. Woodward won the World Cup. He beat every team home and away. Why he should have to continue to do that forever to be considered a great coach is beyond me.

The Saint wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:If you're unhappy with my posts Saint, and believe that they have breached the forum rules, then feel free to report them and one of the admins can adjudicate.  I suspect however that the completion of that act will say a whole lot more about you than it will about me fella.

I did before, on the sticky that had warned about fans behaviour during the 6 Nations. First game in, Englanders wumming, breaking the rules and an English mod joined in. So there's no point if it gets us nowhere, it'll just continue to drive people away from this forum. But now that you've mentioned it, can I put in a complaint about jimpy stalking my posts? It's really creeping me out...

If it drives you away then everyone is a winner Saint.

You may also want to look up what libel actually is.

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:All the hate won't change that.

Typical of you to find a way of trying to turn this into a slagging match, we get it, you do not like Wales, the Welsh or anything to do with my country.

How in the hell could I "hate" Sir Clive Woodward, I do not even know him, I just think he is a fraud.

Well yes I have my issues and most of the time I work with them and make an allowance for them. 

What is your excuse exactly? or is everything you offer up to the forum fair and without prejudice?