Have I been asleep for a week?

Is it April 1st already?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/warren-gatland-v-steve-hansen-11077831

How much store you place by a World Cup win compared to multiple Six Nations Championship crowns probably determines how you rate the duo in this category

....

Well I'm ashamed I read all of that.

lostinwales wrote:

How much store you place by a World Cup win compared to multiple Six Nations Championship crowns probably determines how you rate the duo in this category

....

Not sure why you have highlighted this? It is not an incorrect sentence. If someone was to put more store in winning multiple 6N crowns over the World Cup and therefore conclude that Wales > NZ then they're foolish. But Walesonline are not stating that they are on that side of the coin.

Griff wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

How much store you place by a World Cup win compared to multiple Six Nations Championship crowns probably determines how you rate the duo in this category

....

Not sure why you have highlighted this?  It is not an incorrect sentence.  If someone was to put more store in winning multiple 6N crowns over the World Cup and therefore conclude that Wales > NZ then they're foolish.  But Walesonline are not stating that they are on that side of the coin.  

Although that's not all Hansen has won. He also got 4 RC titles, 2 of which were GS. Just a stupid and lazy comparison.

Shame on anybody who takes that clickbait rag seriously.

OMG - what a load of rubbish - you wonder why other nations get a bit riled up by the ego of the Welsh Media (Which unfortunately transfers (often wrongly) to the Welsh fans and players)

This is the most ridiculous score I have ever seen

Final marks (out of 70)

Hansen 54 Gatland 57


Maybe they should have added a section on number of Game plans

Hansen - a,b, c, d and e
Gatland - a (bash)

At least I will be chuckling when i go for lunch

Thank you Wales Online

Public persona
Hansen 6 Gatland 8

Bahahahahahahhahaha

Riskysports wrote:OMG - what a load of rubbish - you wonder why other nations get a bit riled up by the ego of the Welsh Media (Which unfortunately transfers (often wrongly) to the Welsh fans and players)

This is the most ridiculous score I have ever seen

Final marks (out of 70)

Hansen 54 Gatland 57


Maybe they should have added a section on number of Game plans

Hansen - a,b, c, d and e
Gatland - a (bash)

At least I will be chuckling when i go for lunch

Thank you Wales Online

If it gets you riled up I think that says more about you than anything! It's YOU who would then be transferring it to the welsh fans, not the media. YOUR perception and interpretation, YOU own it!

It's the same as anyone getting riled up about the trash in The Sun or Daily Mail. If you then transfer that to view it as a representation of the people of England or more widely the UK then you're a bit naïve!

Griff wrote:

Riskysports wrote:OMG - what a load of rubbish - you wonder why other nations get a bit riled up by the ego of the Welsh Media (Which unfortunately transfers (often wrongly) to the Welsh fans and players)

This is the most ridiculous score I have ever seen

Final marks (out of 70)

Hansen 54 Gatland 57


Maybe they should have added a section on number of Game plans

Hansen - a,b, c, d and e
Gatland - a (bash)

At least I will be chuckling when i go for lunch

Thank you Wales Online

If it gets you riled up I think that says more about you than anything!  It's YOU who would then be transferring it to the welsh fans, not the media. YOUR perception and interpretation, YOU own it!  

It's the same as anyone getting riled up about the trash in The Sun or Daily Mail.  If you then transfer that to view it as a representation of the people of England or more widely the UK then you're a bit naïve!

Unfortunately Griff, stuff like this does transfer to Welsh fans on their own accord. You just need to read some of the utter sh!te on here from some Welsh kids.

There's only one person on here who seems to take what the Fail say as some sort of gospel. Every other Welsh fan openly mocks the rag, from what I've seen.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

Griff wrote:

Riskysports wrote:OMG - what a load of rubbish - you wonder why other nations get a bit riled up by the ego of the Welsh Media (Which unfortunately transfers (often wrongly) to the Welsh fans and players)

This is the most ridiculous score I have ever seen

Final marks (out of 70)

Hansen 54 Gatland 57


Maybe they should have added a section on number of Game plans

Hansen - a,b, c, d and e
Gatland - a (bash)

At least I will be chuckling when i go for lunch

Thank you Wales Online

If it gets you riled up I think that says more about you than anything!  It's YOU who would then be transferring it to the welsh fans, not the media. YOUR perception and interpretation, YOU own it!  

It's the same as anyone getting riled up about the trash in The Sun or Daily Mail.  If you then transfer that to view it as a representation of the people of England or more widely the UK then you're a bit naïve!

Unfortunately Griff, stuff like this does transfer to Welsh fans on their own accord. You just need to read some of the utter sh!te on here from some Welsh kids.

Selective reading Tatties? Yes, there's some rubbish Welsh posters. But the same for English, etc. A few of you scots are prone to melt downs e.g. the Joubert incident. Who's your buddy on here with the atrocious language and expletives? He's an odd one.

Not sure all rags can be blamed for fueling the WUMs and cretins on here though. If Wales Online is doing it for the Welsh, what is fueling the rest?

Personally I am not riled up by this article at all. I do find it funny though.

I am not riled up - I just chuckled all the way not my lunch

Had a wee chuckle while eating my lunch

a new chuckle while walking back

Now I am at my desk - i am grumpy again

Must read it again to brighten my mood

:-~0

The article itself doesn't rile me either. The fact that some consider it legitimate journalism (it wouldn't be published if they didn't) does, however.

Griff, I appreciate that WalesOnline isn't the only online equivalent of toilet paper and that it goes on everywhere. But whenever an article like this sprouts up I consider it the duty of sensible, intelligent people to denounce it for the unprofessional, interest-laden shoiitestain which we all know it is.

Don't get me started on people like Chris Rattue, the likes of whom should never have been allowed within fifty feet of a pen and paper. But this kind of self-congratulatory, irrationally-conceived drivel really is no better in principle.

Knowsit17 wrote:The article itself doesn't rile me either. The fact that some consider it legitimate journalism (it wouldn't be published if they didn't) does, however.

Griff, I appreciate that WalesOnline isn't the only online equivalent of toilet paper and that it goes on everywhere. But whenever an article like this sprouts up I consider it the duty of sensible, intelligent people to denounce it for the unprofessional, interest-laden shoiitestain which we all know it is.

Don't get me started on people like Chris Rattue, the likes of whom should never have been allowed within fifty feet of a pen and paper. But this kind of self-congratulatory, irrationally-conceived drivel really is no better in principle.

I agree.  But then you have people on here with the 'moral outrage', posting these links to start a war of words, etc.  It's as pathetic as the article itself.  With all that's going on in the world, with Syria, Paris and now Brussels, to take umbrage with a Welsh newspaper talking up their head coach in a comparison article with another coach really makes me wonder for the human race.  It's so trivial as to be irrelevant and insignificant.  Nothing to see.  Move on. Hug your loved ones and sleep safe in the knowledge that your biggest issue today was with the Wales Online article about Gatland.

Please point out the moral outrage because I can't see it. All I see is just a bunch of people having a giggle.

This article does not reflect on Wales or their coach. The only people made to look stupid by this article are its authors.

I read the article and thought it quite humourous.

If you want a giggle, look at the piece they did before Wales played NZ a few years back. NZ came out on top, JUST!


However, even though the rating thing is a bit silly when comparing coaches, you can't dismiss Gatland's record. People will think its silly compared to what Hansen has achieved for the ABs but how about comparing Gatland and Hansen's time in charge of Wales. Things look a lot different then.

What gets me about these two guys is we have an ex hooker being characterised by his back attack, and a former second five eighth who one morning woke up and became an expert forwards coach.

What is a second five eight? Centre? Was Hansen a back? You wouldn't know by looking at him.

profitius wrote:...how about comparing Gatland and Hansen's time in charge of Wales. Things look a lot different then.

You could say the same about Gatland and Graham Henry's times in charge of the Lions against Australia. However, anyone who thinks that puts Gatland ahead of Henry as a coach would be barking mad.

You can be a great player without winning a lot of silverware - Parisse is almost the obligatory mention here - so I'm sure you can also be a great coach without having a hatful of titles. Perhaps you get the best out of the players at your disposal but their best just isn't enough to compete consistently at the top.

I don't think that description fits Gatland because his Welsh sides could have, and should have, beaten Southern Hemisphere teams more often. I'll be delighted if that criticism gets rammed down my throat by Wales winning a series in NZ. I genuinely think such a feat would mitigate all the past failures, no matter what anyone subsequently says about the quality of the opposition. Still looks a long shot.

Most top coaches have some failures in their resume but Hansen has remarkably few. Not only that, it's extremely rare for an assistant coach to take over the main job from a successful predecessor and go on to excel himself. If Hansen loses a series to Gatland's Wales, and then does so again to Gatland's Lions, we can talk about who might be the better coach. Until then, it's not really a serious question.

Wales will beat NZ once on tour. You heard it here first.

GunsGerms wrote:Wales will beat NZ once on tour. You heard it here first.

THIS tour or any tour ever ? We couldn't even beat your shower

GunsGerms wrote:What is a second five eight? Centre? Was Hansen a back? You wouldn't know by looking at him.

Its what you guys call an inside centre. us kiwis have different Rugbyspeak to you guys.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:What is a second five eight? Centre? Was Hansen a back? You wouldn't know by looking at him.

Its not eight, its eighth!!! Its what you guys call an inside centre. us kiwis have different Rugbyspeak to you guys.

By different you mean wrong, right ?

munkian wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:What is a second five eight? Centre? Was Hansen a back? You wouldn't know by looking at him.

Its not eight, its eighth!!! Its what you guys call an inside centre. us kiwis have different Rugbyspeak to you guys.

By different you mean wrong, right ?

Nah. not right or wrong just different.

"The 1903 All Black captain, Jimmy Duncan, is credited with coining the name five-eighths when he decided to take a player from the forwards to add to the backs. The backs at that time consisted of two half-backs, three three-quarters, and a full-back. As the additional player stood between half-back and three-quarters, Duncan came up with the term five-eighths according to the fraction between them.

As the game of rugby union evolved, the two half-back positions acquired separate functions. The outside half-back, now known as the outhalf or fly-half, became the first five-eighths in New Zealand under the two five-eighths system. The next player on his outside was called the second five-eighths.

The terms first-five and second-five are sometimes used as abbreviated versions of first five-eighths and second five-eighths, respectively"


NZ has done a lot of good things for RU over the years - maths aint one of them.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:"The 1903 All Black captain, Jimmy Duncan, is credited with coining the name five-eighths when he decided to take a player from the forwards to add to the backs. The backs at that time consisted of two half-backs, three three-quarters, and a full-back. As the additional player stood between half-back and three-quarters, Duncan came up with the term five-eighths according to the fraction between them.

As the game of rugby union evolved, the two half-back positions acquired separate functions. The outside half-back, now known as the outhalf or fly-half, became the first five-eighths in New Zealand under the two five-eighths system. The next player on his outside was called the second five-eighths.

The terms first-five and second-five are sometimes used as abbreviated versions of first five-eighths and second five-eighths, respectively"


NZ has done a lot of good things for RU over the years - maths aint one of them.

Well done Barney. its simple really.

Rugby Fan wrote:

profitius wrote:...how about comparing Gatland and Hansen's time in charge of Wales. Things look a lot different then.

You could say the same about Gatland and Graham Henry's times in charge of the Lions against Australia. However, anyone who thinks that puts Gatland ahead of Henry as a coach would be barking mad.

You can be a great player without winning a lot of silverware - Parisse is almost the obligatory mention here - so I'm sure you can also be a great coach without having a hatful of titles. Perhaps you get the best out of the players at your disposal but their best just isn't enough to compete consistently at the top.

I don't think that description fits Gatland because his Welsh sides could have, and should have, beaten Southern Hemisphere teams more often. I'll be delighted if that criticism gets rammed down my throat by Wales winning a series in NZ. I genuinely think such a feat would mitigate all the past failures, no matter what anyone subsequently says about the quality of the opposition. Still looks a long shot.

Most top coaches have some failures in their resume but Hansen has remarkably few. Not only that, it's extremely rare for an assistant coach to take over the main job from a successful predecessor and go on to excel himself. If Hansen loses a series to Gatland's Wales, and then does so again to Gatland's Lions, we can talk about who might be the better coach. Until then, it's not really a serious question.

So you're dismissing Gatland's winning record but at the same time you're bringing up his record of not beating SH opposition enough? Isn't that contradictory?


I'm not dismissing Hansen's record btw. Its one thing to have great players but that doesn't guarantee a great team. Hansen managed to do that so fair play to him. Gatland has also molded a team to squeeze the maximum out of the talent it has. Thats all you can ask of a coach. So in that regards, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Gatland's achievement.

profitius wrote:...Gatland has also molded a team to squeeze the maximum out of the talent it has...

My point above, which I'm sure I phrased poorly, is that Gatland hasn't done that. England, Ireland, France, Scotland, Argentina and Samoa all beat Australia during Wales' long barren run against the same opposition. Gatland hasn't registered a victory over one of the top three SH sides at a World Cup, something France and England have managed in the past, and both Ireland and Japan have done at the last two tournaments.