Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

First topic message reminder :

Apparently, according to Ian McGeechan anyway Gatland has been given the job again.

Didn't know Gray was Glasgow captain, but that's another tick for him

To be fair beshocked, SOB has barely played for a year so I'd have Hardie over him for sure at this moment, plenty of time for that to change though

I'd have Hogg as the starter too

exile jack wrote:
I enjoyed your analysis above.Being in NZ this Summer and leaving aside how Gatland will manage the split between the Test and non-Test teams i'd just add the following:
-Biggar was very,very poor.Too slow,too predictable and brainless kicking time after time.Unless he has a stellar season he shouldn't be anywhere near the Lions test team or even the Lions.
-Webb needs to study a video of the speed and distribution of Aaron Smith and limit his use of box-kicking.
-the only Welsh players near a Lions Test place on NZ performances would be Toby,North,Liam to which i'd add Leigh H,and Gethin for the non-Test games squad.

Cheers, glad you enjoyed it. Interesting point about Webb, and one I sort of overlooked in my analysis of kicking. Of course, the scrum half is key in controlling the modern game, and has much more control than the outside half under Gatland. One of those aspecs will be box kicking (which will largely come under the 'best' kick, which is the high and contestable one), so perhaps that removes the need to have a second frontline, open play kicker at 12. Does that mean he opts for Farrell/Biggar to start at 10, with Ford on the bench to come on as and when needed? Quite possibly.

I also agree with Raven, however, that Rhys Webb is probably the best scrum half of the Home Nations at the moment, and didn't think he played too badly out in NZ. His kicking isn't the strongest aspect of his game, but then nor was it Mike Phillips'. I think Webb has other attributes that can offset any perceived weakness from the boot, and it's fair to say Wales were all over the place at times with their kicking tactics out in NZ this Summer, and that includes the chase. Where they can get away with aimless and loose kicks from time to time in the NH as the teams up here are willing to return the ball via the boot, the All Blacks took advantage. Webb has and can kick more effectively than he did on the tour.

I'm looking at how you can get the Lions team ethos/cameradie working within a week. If you have a large group of players from one or two countries, they will more than likely stick to their own and you will end up with cliques. You need a few extraverts as well to help gel the squad off the pitch.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Gatland wasn't in charge vs England in 2013.

Wales were playing to Gatland's tactics. They were still playing "Gatlandball" in 2013. This is evidenced by the fact that the 2013 victory against England was similar to the other victories mentioned; even without Gatland directly coaching on match day, his methods have been entrenched into the Welsh team. Most Welsh fans would accept that Howley- however much authority he had during his tenure as Head Coach, and most people would say he had Gatland in his ear a fair bit of the time- largely stuck with the principles Gatland had laid down in the 5 years prior to his sabbatical, for obvious reasons.

Rather than be the negative you think it is, this neatly proves the point I'm trying to make, which is Gatland has a "simplistic" (on the face of it) gameplan, which requires discipline, honing, and repetition to become successful, and when it does there is typically a blueprint to victories in games where they may well have been considered the underdogs going into it. The England game in 2013 was merely one of many of these examples; even without the firgurehead there on match day, Gatlandball reigned supreme during the 2013 6N win.

Thanks for your input though. What a truly wonderful contribution to these boards.

If I were to take the 6 Scots I listed and rank them as to likelihood to make the initial squad, I'd say the following order would apply based on current status:

1. Stuart Hogg - possibly the best attacking fullback option we have, and had a cracking season last year (and has started strongly in the first two games this year). Still a bit of a maverick but if Biggar or Farrell are starting, then the case for Halfpenny loses some traction, leaving Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Jared Payne as his main competition (at the moment). Of those I see Williams as the biggest threat in terms of the Test XV, unless Anthony Watson is switched to 15, but I still think Hogg is highly likely to tour.

2. WP Nel - strong scrummager and puts in a shift around the park, particularly ball in hand. Wasn't as powerful last season as the season before, partly down to being massively overplayed by Edinburgh. There isn't massive competition at tighthead which will help him, with Cole nailed on to tour and competition likely coming from Samson Lee and Kieran Brookes. Nel will certainly start for Scotland in the AIs and 6 Nations, so he'll have every chance to make his case.

3. Tommy Seymour - had a cracking season last year and has started this season on fire (6 tries in two games). He's a very direct attacking winger with a penchant for an interception. Like Nel he'll certainly be starting the AIs and 6 Nations and if he can carry forward his try scoring form then he's got a decent shot. He can also play equally well on either wing, which is not always a given. Some question marks over his defensive positioning could cost him, but if you assume North and Watson will tour, there's potentially a couple of slots up for grabs in the back three.

4. J Gray - absolute workhorse around the park, lineout caller and strong ball carrier. He's also now got captaincy experience as well. Problem - massive competition for his position! AWJ and Charteris from Wales, Toner and Henderson from Ireland and Itoje, Kruis, Lawes and Launchbury from England. Not to mention his own brother. Lock is the hardest position to call, but Jonny Gray would not look out of place.

5. Dunbar - when fit, sadly not enough, he is an excellent centre at 12 or 13 and combined hard physical running with decent pace. He score tries as well. I personally think that there will be a couple ahead of him in the pecking order (Roberts, Tuilagi, Henshaw, JD2 and Joseph), not to mention Farrell at 12 as an option, or someone like McCloskey coming through (a player I rate). He also faces Scotland competition from a rejuvenated Matt Scott at Glaws, Duncan Taylor at Sarries as well as team mates Peter Horne and Mark Bennett. Still, Stuart Barnes likes Alex Dunbar so we'll certainly be hearing plenty about him in various columns.

6. Hardie - hard-nosed Kiwi specialist openside. Knows NZ rugby like the back of his hand, and has taken well to international rugby. Had a ridiculous long season last year, basically playing a World Cup and full NH season off the back of a full SH season. Hopefully he'll come back strongly this season after a decent break. Competition at 7, certainly for specialist 7s, isn't overwhelmingly compelling. Warburton will, of course, be hotly tipped to tour. If Haskell returns from injury and plays like he did in the summer then it'll be hard to leave him out. Other options are either a bit on the green side (Clifford, Underhill, Davies, Jenkins, Van Der Flier), not featuring for their Test nation regularly (Tipuric, Kvesic, Barclay) or struggling with injuries (SOB). Hardie has a chance.

Sin é wrote:I'm looking at how you can get the Lions team ethos/cameradie working within a week. If you have a large group of players from one or two countries, they will more than likely stick to their own and you will end up with cliques. You need a few extraverts as well to help gel the squad off the pitch.

Of course. Why else do you think DOC ever got to go on Lions tours?  

This is true - selection also needs to include personality, ability to integrate as well as playing ability. Tours need a few jokers - Andy Powell esq.

On the no9 issue -
I personally think that Gareth Davies is a better 9 than Webb.
Youngs and Care are both off the pace a bit from recent domestic performance (solid in Oz)
Havent seen Connor Murray yet but if in form is likely to tour.
Lawson will probably be in the mix too.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Gatland wasn't in charge vs England in 2013.

Wales were playing to Gatland's tactics. They were still playing "Gatlandball" in 2013. This is evidenced by the fact that the 2013 victory against England was similar to the other victories mentioned; even without Gatland directly coaching on match day, his methods have been entrenched into the Welsh team. Most Welsh fans would accept that Howley- however much authority he had during his tenure as Head Coach, and most people would say he had Gatland in his ear a fair bit of the time- largely stuck with the principles Gatland had laid down in the 5 years prior to his sabbatical, for obvious reasons.

Rather than be the negative you think it is, this neatly proves the point I'm trying to make, which is Gatland has a "simplistic" (on the face of it) gameplan, which requires discipline, honing, and repetition to become successful, and when it does there is typically a blueprint to victories in games where they may well have been considered the underdogs going into it. The England game in 2013 was merely one of many of these examples; even without the firgurehead there on match day, Gatlandball reigned supreme during the 2013 6N win.

Thanks for your input though. What a truly wonderful contribution to these boards.

No problem, so on the whole Gatlandball fails then.

I think miaow is hugely over-thinking Gatlandball and is way, way too confident about the upcoming Lions tour.

That's the impression I get from wading through his purple prose.

From the BBC:

The British and Irish Lions have a "great chance" of beating a New Zealand side with "definite weaknesses", says England head coach Eddie Jones.

Warren Gatland's side tour New Zealand next summer, and are underdogs to win the series against the world champions.

But Jones feels the Lions are capable of toppling the All Blacks for the first time since 1971.

"There are definite weaknesses in the New Zealand side," Jones told BBC Sport.

"The Lions have to attack those weaknesses and then play to their strengths."

Steve Hansen's All Blacks have not lost a Test at home since 2009, a run of 43 games, but Jones added: "The Lions have a great chance.

"Of course it is going to be tough, but out of the four teams [England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland], they can put out a great squad of 35, 36 players more than capable of taking the Kiwis on."

Jones was backed to coach the Lions himself after guiding England to a Grand Slam and a series whitewash of Australia, but was unavailable because of his commitment to the Rugby Football Union.

However, he feels the Lions have the right man in Gatland, who led the Lions to victory in Australia in 2013.

Gatland, confirmed as Lions coach last Wednesday, will lead the team until the end of the tour next July, having taken a sabbatical from his job as Wales head coach.

"It's a great appointment," Jones said. "Warren has done it before, and he has a great appreciation of European rugby.

"He knows the players in England, Scotland and Ireland - obviously he knows the Welsh players - so he will do a great job."

Jones' focus is now on the first match of England's autumn series, against South Africa at Twickenham, with the squad named at the end of this month.

"We always ask the players to go back to their clubs and perform like international players," Jones said.

"So if players don't perform at that level, then the selection will change."

Poorfour wrote:If Gatland's aim is to win the last 20 minutes, then there is a lot of work to be done for it to work against NZ. It's a tactic that has worked quite well in the NH over the last few years - particularly against Lancaster's over-conservative English benches - but the only time I can remember it working against SH opposition was in the 3rd Lions test in 2013.

Instead, the litany of games that Wales have lost at the death against SH teams is a long one. On this summer's tour, Wales were closest to the ABs in the first 60 minutes but couldn't live this the finish.

I guess the issue is that he's not the only coach trying to do that, and several of them do it better. NZ in particular have a knack of producing a crucial score when they really need one to seal the game (as England found in the 2014 tour), and England under Eddie Jones have shown a knack for effective final quarters.

My feeling is that Gatland's benches tend to have players who can exploit any opening up of the defence as the opposition bench comes on, but the better teams have the skills and fitness to maintain discipline up the final whistle. I like what Eddie is doing with the English bench - he is starting to pick players who are still disciplined but very different in style to the starters, so that he can ask different questions of tiring defences rather than rely on the game breaking up.

Good point, and where Gatland has failed a few times with Wales, in that the comeback has been too late (England 2016) or simply they haven't been able to produce a strong finish to games and it results in either a really scrappy, close win over teams they should be beating more comfortably (every time they play the Pacific Islands), or they just don't come claw back to gap on the scoreboard against the big teams like NZ or SA.

funnyExiledScot wrote:The other problem with relying on fitness against NZ is that they are supremely fit. They thrive on the last 20 minutes when games tend to open up. That's when NZ are at their most devastating. Countless times NH sides have held them close for 40-50 minutes only to ship a bunch of points in the final quarter.

This is a similar point as above, and I'll try to roll my answer into one. I don't think it's so much as being holistically "fitter" than the opposition, in any regard: strength, aerobic fitness, whatever. It's more to do with a very specific kind of game fitness. If I recall, Gatland had Wales training in 39 (could be a different number, but it was very specific) minute training sessions, in order to try to get them ready for 39 minutes of ball in play rugby matches. This is what I mean about control; it's the hope that, within the 80 minutes, you can influence the game so that it's played at a pace and the ball is in the field for enough minutes that make it preferential to your training methods.

If the Lions think they can simply outlast the All Blacks, then they have no chance. It's not hoping that they can run rings around them in the final quarter, it's quite the opposite in fact: look at Argentina, and as you say most NH teams when they play them; they're blown by the time the final quarter comes around, and that's where NZ cut loose and put the tries on them.

I'm not quite sure how to phrase this, or how to paint the picture, but I'll have a go. It's less to do with blitzing them in the final few minutes, and more hoping that- as both teams naturally tire- because you have had more practice at precisely the kind of rugby tempo that is being played, by continuing the same sort of controlled carrying and safe recycling of the ball at the breakdown, the gaps/offences will be made by the other teams. As I said, it works on the premise that you're hopefully leading due to penalty kicks and perhaps one or two tries anyway, so you don't need the knockout blow, but even if you do, having controlled the tempo, you should still have something in the tank to go for it in the last ten minutes if that is required.

Another key component I forgot to mention in the previous long assessment was the scoreboard itself; by the very nature of Gatland's tactics, he tries to keep the scoring numbers relatively low, for both sides (bear with me). It was a frequent thing whereby if a team scored 20 points against Wales, it seemed almost impossible for them to win the game; essentially, because scoring enough points to overcome such a number would mean opening the game up, losing 'control' of it, and therefore it's a lottery, and breaking the gameplan. There are a few exceptions to the rule where Wales have triumped when teams have scored more than 20 points, and as I said I think he was hapy to let the team cut loose in NZ because he wanted to be seen to be a coach who could inspire running and high scoring rugby in his teams (advert for the ABs job). However, if you limit the other team to say in and around 10-15 points, however badly you've done in the preceding 60/70 minutes, it shouldn't be a huge margin to overcome in the dying minutes. Effectively, they couldn't overturn 24 points against England in the 2016 6Ns, because that's a bit mad. However, if it's say 16-16, or even 10-16, then even just one score can be decisive, rather than needing a monumental effort to overcome a large deficit.

I'm not sure I've expressed myself well there, but essentially the lower the scoreline, the more important any points scored towards the end of the game become: it's relying on being able to get it right (through control etc.) during this period that Gatland trusts his players to be the ones scoring, rather than they other way around. Unfortunately, with Wales, there's been a big mental block when playing the SH teams, and it's moreso that than the actual skills of the other teams in most games (in my opinion) that has seen Wales either miss glorious opportunities to score at the death, or to concede last minute points when they've put themselves in these winning positions (4 times against Australia in 2012, France WC semi final 2011, SA second Test 2014 etc.). I think this tactic does work against the SH, as the third Lions test against Australia proved. It just needs the addition of players from the other Home Nations who have a better mental state (typically this means English players) that ensures they don't bottle it at the death. I've been going on about Wales bottling it, in part because I think it's almost a national psyche to self destruct due to the discomfort of being favourites in something, on the rugby field for years. There's probably some who disagree.

Moving on, the glaring, obvious risks to this gameplan are:

1. How do you stop NZ from scoring over 20 points? You probably cannot, so there may need to be some flexibility to the gameplan.
2. How do you make sure you are able to control the game enough, to not let NZ cut loose, the danger of which is that you're all shattered come the dying minutes? Again, very hard, especially with the nature of the Lions and how long you have to coach them, but it is theoretically feasible to do, even accounting for some times where they overrun you.

This is why it's so difficult for Gatland and the Lions. The All Blacks are simply that good that they have to either play out of their skins, or they need a few things up their sleeves to whip out at the opportune moment (I'm sure Gatland will expect and train for both), particularly because teams can counter any preparations you have by anticipating the plan you will put in place (NZ won't expect the Lions to play as loose as Argentina did the weekend just gone, and will train and prepare accordingly)

Cyril wrote:I think miaow is hugely over-thinking Gatlandball and is way, way too confident about the upcoming Lions tour.

That's the impression I get from wading through his purple prose.

I think as someone who has watched every minute of every Welsh game, either live or on TV, since Gatland took charge, and rewatched online etc., I'm pretty well placed to make an assessment of it. I'd trust an English posters assessment of Lancaster's tenure if they were coming up with equally minute dissections and analysis of his tactics, because I'm sure they've watched it more intently than I have.

Equally, there have been 8 years of "Gatlandball" now, and as we all know, the bigger the sample, the stronger any conclusion is. Particularly as Gatland's tactics are somewhat inimical to the natural disposition of Welsh rugby players, it's fair to say my assessments of the minutae of Wales's tactics are inspired by Gatland: it's why he keeps getting the top jobs. You don't think he just sits in Lions interviews and repeats the kind of bland tactical overview that he says at a press conference, do you? Do you really think his tactics are that basic, and he is that lazy as a coach?

You're also mistaking analysis for a prediction of success.

I think you're "underthinking" "Gatlandball".

miaow wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think miaow is hugely over-thinking Gatlandball and is way, way too confident about the upcoming Lions tour.

That's the impression I get from wading through his purple prose.

I think as someone who has watched every minute of every Welsh game, either live or on TV, since Gatland took charge, and rewatched online etc., I'm pretty well placed to make an assessment of it. I'd trust an English posters assessment of Lancaster's tenure if they were coming up with equally minute dissections and analysis of his tactics, because I'm sure they've watched it more intently than I have.

Equally, there have been 8 years of "Gatlandball" now, and as we all know, the bigger the sample, the stronger any conclusion is. Particularly as Gatland's tactics are somewhat inimical to the natural disposition of Welsh rugby players, it's fair to say my assessments of the minutae of Wales's tactics are inspired by Gatland: it's why he keeps getting the top jobs. You don't think he just sits in Lions interviews and repeats the kind of bland tactical overview that he says at a press conference, do you? Do you really think his tactics are that basic, and he is that lazy as a coach?

You're also mistaking analysis for a prediction of success.

I think you're "underthinking" "Gatlandball".

Do you think the English and Irish (and maybe Scots) players drafted in will be enough to make the scorelines 'respectable', given that they're having to be shoe-horned into a system and don't have much gametime together? Given Gatland's efforts in the Welsh summer tour in NZ you seem to have a lot of faith in the other nations players to make a big difference to even acheive close losses.

mikey_dragon wrote: it's just tedious and repetitive waffle like I and some other posters do.

Oh the irony...

mikey_dragon wrote: blind or what. One of those Welsh locks is set to be the captain

No 7&1/2 wrote:No problem, so on the whole Gatlandball fails then.

Incredible. Like speaking with a child who wants the authority of an adult.

I'm surprised your name includes a fraction, such is your inability to see any nuance, and the world/ideas in only black and white.

Dear me miaow, get off your high horse. I've been a bit of a fan of Gatland over the years but he does appear entrenched in a negative gameplan for Wales. You appear to back the thoguht that if he allowed a bit more freedom it would be too much of a risk. I see it the other way that gatland has started to hold back some great Welsh players in his stubbornness. I was suggesting he may want to look at other backroom staff before they were all signed up again but alas no; not even sure he would let them bring in fresh ideas anyway.

I'm still trying my best not to resort to insults but some of the posters here are challenging that.

Cyril wrote:Do you think the English and Irish (and maybe Scots) players drafted in will be enough to make the scorelines 'respectable', given that they're having to be shoe-horned into a system and don't have much gametime together? Given Gatland's efforts in the Welsh summer tour in NZ you seem to have a lot of faith in the other nations players to make a big difference to even acheive close losses.

I think Gatland's shown in the past that he's willing to lose games if it means he wins the big ones. I don't think he thought Wales stood a reasonable chance of winning the Test series down in NZ, and actually didn't really play "Gatlandball" very much at all: it was far looser, the ball moved a lot wider, than he has coached his teams to do in the Summer.

This was for a few reasons; firstly, but perhaps not most importantly, because he wanted to appease the NZ rugby public and no longer be seen as the coach who coaches turgid rugby; secondly, because Wales were at the end of a long and hard RWC season and could never execute the 'control' I've talked about previously because they simply didn't have the physical or coaching preparation to do this; thirdly, they had lost a few key players to injury, and Wales have very poor strength in depth, again making said control near impossible. The Lions will not suffer from these things.

Equally, the results will matter far more for the Lions than the Summer Tests did for Wales: I believe in 2015 6Ns Gatland held back in training the team with any new rugby tactics (it was admitted as such that they purely did fitness training), partly so that there would be an element of surprise come the RWC. This was particularly the case against England, where Wales seemed to sit on their haunches a bit in that second half of the 6Ns game, and didn't score a point. It's not so much he wanted to lose, but he didn't want to give anything away in terms of how he might play it in the World Cup, and in doing so he also drew England out and saw some of Lancaster's tactics. He would rather have won the 6Ns game, but then if it's a choice between that and the RWC group game, it's an obvious one. What was the result? Of course, Gatland got the better of Lancaster, added a pick and go element to the game which hadn't been present in the previous "one out from the 9" close carrying game, amongst a few other nuanced aspects to "Gatlandball" and- despite all their injuries- Wales beat England and knocked them out of their own RWC. Down in NZ, he's now had a good look at how NZ- and particularly key players like Beauden Barrett and Aaron Smith- will play the game when it opens up: this is absolutely integral for the Lions, because this is precisely what much of the Lions coaching focus will be on, stopping NZ playing at a tempo that is too high for the Lions to live with, and shutting down their key players who make the All Blacks play that way.

I also really don't undertand this idea of "shoehorning" players in. It's such a strange way of seeing things. If a player fits, they fit. Did Corbersiero feel "shoehorned" in? Did Connor Murray? Will any non-Welsh players picked for the Test team really feel so out of place that they'd be inferior picks to their Welsh competition? No. It's just a rather fundamental misunderstanding of selection, the methodology I'm trying to explain, and the calibre of player the Lions have available to them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dear me miaow, get off your high horse. I've been a bit of a fan of Gatland over the years but he does appear entrenched in a negative gameplan for Wales. You appear to back the thoguht that if he allowed a bit more freedom it would be too much of a risk. I see it the other way that gatland has started to hold back some great Welsh players in his stubbornness. I was suggesting he may want to look at other backroom staff before they were all signed up again but alas no; not even sure he would let them bring in fresh ideas anyway.

I'm still trying my best not to resort to insults but some of the posters here are challenging that.

If that's you best then it's probably best to just leave it. I'm dubious that it is, and I think you're quite happy stirring the pot. How on earth did you get that "Gatlandball fails" from what I wrote, and why was it that the only contribution you had to my earlier, lengthy post was some really redundant nitpicking? Na, you're not trying your best whatsoever. Admittedly, personal insults aren't great, but you're being immature, and like a child you're not taking responsibility for your actions, so I'm calling you out as one.

You've also misunderstood what I've said. How am I arguing against "more freedom" (which is a really vague statement, narrow it down a bit as I have done please), when I've quite literally advocated precisely that by saying they will need to match the All Blacks' tempo, and try to blitz them from time to time, which is not always seen in the NH?

Good analysis of the Scottish players who could possibly go fES. I think there could feasibly be a Scottish centre pairing: a season is a long time, and such is the way Matt Scott and Mark Bennett have flitted in and out of favour in recent years, a big year from either or both could put them back in contention. Richie Gray has experience on his side, and height. If they do target the All Blacks lineout, which I think is more likely a scenario than going for their scrum, which is never, ever weak, does he stand a chance there? There are better lineout locks, yes, but his sheer height is on his side there. Hidalgo Clyne could have a big year, and replace Gareth Davies as the sort of running scrum half to come off the bench, or when they're looking to play a bit looser in a midweek game. I'm sure there are plenty of others who you would be better placed to make an assessment of, but there have been a fair number of Scottish players who have looked good in recent seasons, only to drop off a bit: a few big performances in the 6Ns and in Europe, and they could be right back in the frame.

I still haven't resorted to insults miaow, don't suggest I have.

I got Gatlandball fails as it doesn't work consistantly especially against SH opposition. If you want to pick out 3 games vs England etc and say see, you have to look at the other England games where it hasn't and don't pretend it's Gatland holding stuff back. You haven't focussed on the run of losses his tactics have brought (was it a record in the end?). Lancaster despite his faults was getting the better of Gatland (despite the WC defeat before being knocked out by Australia) and the majority of my fellow Englishmen don't rate him much.

After all this we still seem to be saying that Gatland will have play it his way or the high way, and he'll have his favourites picked no matter what. I still think he should be more flexible and open to change.

zzzzz

There is a lot of speculation on tactics - you would like to think that whoever his assistants will be that they will have some influence on the larger squad.
It was expected on the last tour that Gatland would take Sean Edwards with him - instead he took Farrell.
I would expect some of the England contingent would be asked (EJ expects it too). So would Gustard and or Borthwick work well with Gatland?
Scmidt has re-signed with IRFU - does that possibly prevent him from touring with Gatland? Vern Cotter is going to be available after 6N.

The point I am making is that there should be a good mix in the coaching set-up and that may be reflected in the lager squad composition.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I still haven't resorted to insults miaow, don't suggest I have.

Where have I suggested you have? I was saying my own insults "weren't great", but there was justification for them due to your rather facile one line commentary, where you'd misinterpreted what I'd written...which is ironic, considering this is- again- what you've done here.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I got Gatlandball fails as it doesn't work consistantly especially against SH opposition.

How hasn't it worked? He's won a Lions Tour against Australia!

Now, there have been far too many games where Wales have lost against the SH teams- particularly Australia, fairly often against SA, not so frequnetly if at all against NZ- where they should have won, or at least were in a brilliant position to do so. I think the frequency with which these losses have happened is symbolic of a mental weaknesses of the Welsh players, and one that has grown and grown over the years and seeps in during these games so they lose confidence in their own abilities, and ultimately lose the game. Let's consider the four times in 2012 where they lost against Australia (two of which were won by Australia with the last play of the game), the 13 point lead being sacrificed against SA in the last ten minutes (Liam Williams conceding the penalty try), even the RWC game against Australia when they were down to 13 men, as well as other numerous games between 2009-and 2011, notably against SA, where they just couldn't get the final score where they had done against Ireland, England, Scotland, and France. In part it is because the SANZAR teams are better than the NH teams, yet if it's worked well against the NH teams (add Ireland 2012, Scotland 2010, France 2013 to the list, again there are plenty more), and said NH teams have beaten those SH teams, why do Wales lose when they haven't been that far off beating the SH teams on a fairly regular occurrence? As I said, the Welsh mental fragility- which has become a monkey on their backs- plays a big part, and the same Welsh players seemed liberated when playing alongside a few different players for the Lions. It's not as if Gatlandball has left Wales well off the pace, quite the opposite: they have been highly competitive, and the results quite frankly do not reflect the games where they have outplayed or bettered the opposition for much of the game, but still lost. That's not solely a fault of the tactics, I'm suggesting it's almost the opposite: there were time where playing a looser game would probably have got them home against the SH sides, but equally would they have beaten the NH teams with the same frequency, and won the titles they have? It's not a sure thing.

Ultimately, let's look at where these tactics have worked in a situation that is most analagous to the one that will be the case in NZ next Summer: i.e., where Gatland has been able to select from players who aren't just Welsh. Lo and behold, he has won two out of three, or 66% of the games, in such a manner, and the one that was lost was due to a missed kick as the last act of the game (still comes under the same sort of style of play, they were just on the wrong side of the result). The whole point is it is control and brinkmanship, and Gatland gets it right more often that not when it matters. 66% is more often that not. Until that stops being the case, he deserves the praise and credit he gets, because I don't believe that there is a coaching methodology that has proven itself to be as successful and competitive for the length of time that Gatland's have and will been.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you want to pick out 3 games vs England etc and say see, you have to look at the other England games where it hasn't and don't pretend it's Gatland holding stuff back. You haven't focussed on the run of losses his tactics have brought (was it a record in the end?). Lancaster despite his faults was getting the better of Gatland (despite the WC defeat before being knocked out by Australia) and the majority of my fellow Englishmen don't rate him much.

The record was, incidentally, when Gatland was injured and away with the Lions. How is that an argument against him, other than the fact that they probably need him on match day and dealing more with the specifics than initially was the case? It's probably more indicative of the fact that the gameplan isn't that simplistic, and cannot be replicated, without the man who devised it having at least some day to day input, which most people feel was the case when Wales went on to win the 6Ns in an emphatic manner so soon after the run of defeats.

You can accuse me of "pretending", fine, but I'm literally telling you that is my opinion. He's happy to lose warm up games if it means he wins the Lions the Test series. Equally, why is it unreasonable for such a calculating coach to be so "result" orientated in this way? How is that so hard to understand? He has a huge amount of credit in the bank with Wales, he can get away with it: he doesn't want to lose the game, he'd rather win it but in doing so wants to keep any future cards he has to his chest. Those cards are then utilised when it matters, and having drawn England out and seen some of Lancaster's breakdown tactics, Wales kept drawing England into conceding penalties at ruck time, they converted those into 3 points, stayed in the game, and then won it against all the odds having lost so many players to injury. It works!!

He wouldn't get away with it as NZ coach, and that's one big negative I think against him for being their next coach, simply because he hasn't really had a period of continued dominance with Wales for a season or two (like England's just gone) where they've gone on a great winning run. NZ demand consistency of achievement, particularly after Henry and Hansen have recalibrated what that means. But equally, that might be great for a short period of time (I expect England's bubble to burst within the next 12-18 months), but his methods give him sticking power; it means he picks and chooses when to unleash the tricky tactics he's been working with his players on, and win the championship or world cup group deciding matches. I can see the merits of both approaches to coaching, and the risks of banking on good credit with your fans and employers if you are willing to prioritise the big games. But it works. This is what I'm saying. It works, and until it doesn't more often than not, he deserves to be where he is.

I don't really care if your fellow Englishmen don't rate him, despite the time I'm spending elaborating on his merits (and weaknesses) in this thread. He's been undeniably successful with Wales, and got the better of England when it has mattered the most. I dare say it's not a wholly objective dislike of him.

No 7&1/2 wrote:After all this we still seem to be saying that Gatland will have play it his way or the high way, and he'll have his favourites picked no matter what. I still think he should be more flexible and open to change.

You've literally understood nothing what I've been trying to say then. You're too inflexible, it's all binaries and absolutes: his way or the highway, no matter what, flexibility and opposed to rigidity. It's a spectrum of opinion, you're not getting it.

'I'm still trying my best not to resort to insults but some of the posters here are challenging that.'

'If that's you best then it's probably best to just leave it.'

propdavid_london wrote:There is a lot of speculation on tactics - you would like to think that whoever his assistants will be that they will have some influence on the larger squad. I would expect some of the England contingent would be asked (EJ expects it too).  So would Gustard and or Borthwick work well with Gatland?  

I don't think it's likely Edwards will go because Wales's defence was so poor last season. Gustard, and particularly Borthwick, stand a great chance, because I think the Lions will have to have a good go at the All Blacks' lineout, where Borthwick's apparently meticulous coaching will be perfect.

That said, these coaches will still have the work within the framework of "Gatlandball", which I believe to be entirely possible.

What's Wales win ratio against SH sides (top 3 or 4 will do) from the Gatlands appointment then?

Yes, 7.5. If your best is "Gatland wasn't coach in 2013", then you should just leave it...that's what I meant.

So the record doesn't fall under Gatland but the win against in England in 2013 does.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's Wales win ratio against SH sides (top 3 or 4 will do) from the Gatlands appointment then?

It's poor when taken out of context. I've taken the time to provide that context. You cannot just ignore that, but evidently you want to.

The most relevant stats, for people like you who need that sort of 'proof', is that he has won 66% of his Lions games against SH opposition.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the record doesn't fall under Gatland but the win against in England in 2013 does.

No, I said 2013 was a win demonstrating how Gatlandball is successful. How are you still not getting this? Why are you still trying to be reductive and work to binaries when I'm repeatedly telling you not to, because it's too childlike!?

Your problem is you immediately think people are wumming on this thread even though it's against our own coach.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the record doesn't fall under Gatland but the win against in England in 2013 does.

No, I said 2013 was a win demonstrating how Gatlandball is successful. How are you still not getting this? Why are you still trying to be reductive and work to binaries when I'm repeatedly telling you not to, because it's too childlike!?

Yes, but when I say that those tactics brought about a record series of losses it doesn't count as he was away injured. You can't have it both ways. He's either engrained his way of playing and it's a brilliant success fair enough but then you can't just say he wasn't on the touchline it doesn't count when pointed out it doesn't bring success in the picture of the SH and those defeats.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your problem is you immediately think people are wumming on this thread even though it's against our own coach.

I'm not suggesting you're WUMming, I think you just tried to shoot me down immediately because you disagreed with my opinion before letting me elaborate, and now that I have done, you can come up with nothing more than the nitpicking over whether Gatland was in charge during 2013, and out of context statistics etc., rather than providing an elaboration of your views, and trying to justify them in the same manner. Instead you just have black and white opinions. I think you probably believe what you do, I don't think you're WUMming.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's Wales win ratio against SH sides (top 3 or 4 will do) from the Gatlands appointment then?

It's poor when taken out of context. I've taken the time to provide that context. You cannot just ignore that, but evidently you want to.

The most relevant stats, for people like you who need that sort of 'proof', is that he has won 66% of his Lions games against SH opposition.

I don't buy that. Looking at those list of defeats against SH is poor reading. I do rate Gatland but he's underachieved with Wales given their players and I think he underachieved in the last Lions tour.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your problem is you immediately think people are wumming on this thread even though it's against our own coach.

I'm not suggesting you're WUMming, I think you just tried to shoot me down immediately because you disagreed with my opinion before letting me elaborate, and now that I have done, you can come up with nothing more than the nitpicking over whether Gatland was in charge during 2013, and out of context statistics etc., rather than providing an elaboration of your views, and trying to justify them in the same manner. Instead you just have black and white opinions. I think you probably believe what you do, I don't think you're WUMming.

Not really changed my stance here at all throughout. I believe he was too set in his ways and tried impose his Wales tactics on a better (as in the Lions players will always be a higher calibre than individual countries) broader set of players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes, but when I say that those tactics brought about a record series of losses it doesn't count as he was away injured. You can't have it both ways. He's either engrained his way of playing and it's a brilliant success fair enough but then you can't just say he wasn't on the touchline it doesn't count when pointed out it doesn't bring success in the picture of the SH and those defeats.

THIS IS THE TRAP I'M TELLING YOU NOT TO FALL INTO!

It's not just two ways. It's a weighing up of the facts, and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. It's a spectrum, not a binary, and the spectrum is a sliding scale with each new piece of evidence that influences the opinion.

To put it in more practical terms, could it be that the team could replicate most of Gatlandball which they had been brought them success in the 2011 WC and 2012 6N GS, but without him there doing the coaching in the week, and the mental weakness Wales have against Australia, those few small losses of "percentages" add up to the very, very small margins of defeat that occurred on the Summer Tour of 2012.

Equally, can you not then understand that- having seen the performances dip in the Autumn- when Gatland came back into the coaching box against Australia than Autumn, the performance improved somewhat, to the point whereby it took the last play of the game for Australia to beat Wales by 2 points.

From that point on- to avoid a continuation of the small margins of defeat, and to break what was becoming a worrying dip in results, particularly as Gatland would have wanted lots of his Welsh players who had excelled the previous season to go on Tour with him in the Summer of 2013 with the Lions- he had more of an active (if distant) role in the coaching? This is unknowable, but I think most Welsh fans felt he stepped in during the halfway stage of that AI (in part to avoid dropping out of the second tier of RWC qualification, which they then did) and had more of an input throughout the 6Ns than he had against Samoa and Argentina.

On the weighing up of evidence, on the fact that you cannot reduce the defeat solely down to the responsibility of the coach, on the fact that Wales went from Grand Slam, to record losses, to then Six Nations title, you can surmise that one factor- Gatland's absence- played something of a role, as did the Welsh mental fragility against the SH teams.

It may be that Gatland didn't really have much input during the 2013 6Ns, and it may be that it was simply the players' fragility alone that saw them lose the games they did, only to then win the 6Ns.

But whatever you do, don't just stick it in an overly simplistic binary where you can settle on a fixed and lazy assessment of Gatland. That's what leads to opinions such as Gatland is inflexible, stubborn, unsuccessful...oh wait...

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't buy that. Looking at those list of defeats against SH is poor reading. I do rate Gatland but he's underachieved with Wales given their players and I think he underachieved in the last Lions tour.

He probably has underachieved with Wales, but then as I've said, he's perhaps overachieved at times. It's what gives him credit in the bank when he does underachieve. I don't see how- considering all the odds against him on a Lions Tour- you can call a Tour victory an underachievement and nothing more. That's just dull.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not really changed my stance here at all throughout. I believe he was too set in his ways and tried impose his Wales tactics on a better (as in the Lions players will always be a higher calibre than individual countries) broader set of players.

I know you have. The irony is that, in not changing your really simple understanding in the face of such much evidence and opinion to the contrary, and not providing any elaboration on why you hold those views, you're being...stubborn!

miaow, seriously, why are you bothering with him ?


I have learn't the hard way with No 7&1/2. He will just keep pushing and poking no matter how many answers you give him. Look at this post. He started off by celebrating an injury to a player, then criticised the first successful Lions coach since 1997. He is a troll. His only aim is to wind people up. What is he still doing now ? He is re-hashing the same crap, yet you keep trying to explain it to him.

This will still be on going tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after....

Because no matter what answers you give him, he will subtly re-word the question to keep his agenda running.

From the outset, he has inclined that Gatland will favour out of form or injured Welsh players, you have countered his claims, on numerous occasions, yet here we are discussing the same thing. If I were you I would just put him on ignore, like I have.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's Wales win ratio against SH sides (top 3 or 4 will do) from the Gatlands appointment then?

It's poor when taken out of context. I've taken the time to provide that context. You cannot just ignore that, but evidently you want to.

The most relevant stats, for people like you who need that sort of 'proof', is that he has won 66% of his Lions games against SH opposition.

I don't buy that. Looking at those list of defeats against SH is poor reading. I do rate Gatland but he's underachieved with Wales given their players and I think he underachieved in the last Lions tour.

Okay so there's the SH, and there's also NZ (where the Lions are headed). So presumably the SH refers to Aus, SA, Arg, possibly Japan? Why is that relevant? When people bring this up I get the impression they're wanting a coach with a good record against the opposition - in this case the All Black of New Zealand. Could someone point out who this coach is and whether or not he was available?

Graham Henry or Wayne Smith would have been interesting options! Suspect bother were unavailable and or not inclined.

Or legally constrained.

Henry is retired, not sure about Smith. Both would have been good options in an ideal world, but when are things ever that straightforward...

Gatland is the Lions head coach - fact
Next big decision is who the support staff will be and that would likely be a good indication of how the squad will be selected.
We can rule out Howley and EJ as contenders - but bets are out on all others.

I am looking forward to this tour - something about a backs to the wall situation and the incredibly slim chance of success against the most successful union side ever. Any and all small victories will be savoured. The 10 match long tour will hopefully produce some cracking games against the franchises and give plenty of time for the squad to gel.

miaow I've said this many times - Wales have been fixated too much by the RWC win over England. Dan Biggar was made Welsh sports personality of the year as a result.

I think Welsh fans are guilty of only focussing on Gatland's victories and not his limitations.

He has indeed has had some success. Notably against NH sides but his overall % is not good. Around 50%. 47 victories, 2 draws, 44 losses.

Gatland has kept his job with Wales thanks to that England win but it doesn't prevent Gatland from being a limited coach.

Gatland has got the Lions job, not because he's the best man for the job, he's just one of the few who actually threw his hat in the ring.

propdavid_london wrote:Gatland is the Lions head coach - fact
Next big decision is who the support staff will be and that would likely be a good indication of how the squad will be selected.  
We can rule out Howley and EJ as contenders - but bets are out on all others.

I am looking forward to this tour - something about a backs to the wall situation and the incredibly slim chance of success against the most successful union side ever.  Any and all small victories will be savoured.  The 10 match long tour will hopefully produce some cracking games against the franchises and give plenty of time for the squad to gel.  

Agree with you there. Also regarding selection here is an interesting lineup, it's pretty much a team of the week, minus French, Italian, etc.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/17528015/the-british-irish-lions-team-week

Interesting pick at LH, and Navidi at 7 I think goes to show I was right all along in rating him highly when others had said he wasn't that good.

If there has been this much bickering about the appointment of a coach, who was of course a nailed on certainty, lord alone knows what guff we will have when:

a) His coaching panel is named
b) The team is named
c) The series is won/lost (either will cause uproar)

beshocked wrote:miaow I've said this many times - Wales have been fixated too much by the RWC win over England. Dan Biggar was made Welsh sports personality of the year as a result.

I think Welsh fans are guilty of only focussing on Gatland's victories and not his limitations.

He has indeed has had some success. Notably against NH sides but his overall % is not good. Around 50%. 47 victories, 2 draws, 44 losses.

Gatland has kept his job with Wales thanks to that England win but it doesn't prevent Gatland from being a limited coach.

Gatland has got the Lions job, not because he's the best man for the job, he's just one of the few who actually threw his hat in the ring.

Well said.

miaow, there's another way of viewing that context, though. The way I would view it that Gatland's tactics are very effective up to a certain point.

It's a fairly straightforward game plan and the opposition know what they're going to get (though I will accept that there's some cause to believe he's changing things up a little based on the NZ tour). His teams put other teams under pressure with their power, intensity and ability to take the points from all over the field. A lot of time that creates openings late in the game that his teams can exploit.

In many ways, it's not that dissimilar to England's tactics for most of their time under Woodward, or even the mid-90s England of de Glanville, Carling and Guscott [1].

The issue comes when teams can match that intensity. The SH ones have been able to do it consistently enough that Wales haven't been able to find a way through. The NH teams have been less consistently able to cope - but the extended bout of Lancastrian cerebral flatulence that was the RWC apart, England have managed it pretty well in recent games. The 6N game was a case in point: even though Wales were able to exploit Manu's lack of match fitness and were coming back at the end, England were able to regroup and raise their intensity enough to hold on.

The gameplan may also need to move on for personnel reasons. Jamie Roberts looks to me to be losing a bit of his effectiveness (typical - just after he joined Quins) and that has a disproportionate impact on the backline. Wales don't have the carrying power across the park that they used to have, so they may need a new way of making yards.

All of which makes me wonder if he might actually try a different gameplan.

[1] I wondered at the time why Guscott was only on the bench, but I recently realised that it was a brilliant tactic. de Glanville and Carling hammered the defence for 60 minutes, until it was nicely tenderised for Guscott to come on fresh and tear it to shread.

Very very boring.

I'm so much more looking forward to Soldier Field and the return at the Aviva as well as our games this autumn.

What might happen 9 or 10 months from now in some sort of exercise in failure, for lets be honest that's what the Lions is, is for me such a tedious distraction.

Let it go.

LordDowlais wrote:miaow, seriously, why are you bothering with him ?


I have learn't the hard way with No 7&1/2. He will just keep pushing and poking no matter how many answers you give him. Look at this post. He started off by celebrating an injury to a player, then criticised the first successful Lions coach since 1997. He is a troll. His only aim is to wind people up. What is he still doing now ? He is re-hashing the same crap, yet you keep trying to explain it to him.

This will still be on going tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after....

Because no matter what answers you give him, he will subtly re-word the question to keep his agenda running.

From the outset, he has inclined that Gatland will favour out of form or injured Welsh players, you have countered his claims, on numerous occasions, yet here we are discussing the same thing. If I were you I would just put him on ignore, like I have.

Didn't celebrate anything not my fault you take meaning from words which aren't there. You bring it up again despite it being which is hypocritical and still moan about bias to the Welsh as you seemingly haven't read what I've said bar cherry pick the quotes about Warburton and possibly Davies.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't buy that. Looking at those list of defeats against SH is poor reading. I do rate Gatland but he's underachieved with Wales given their players and I think he underachieved in the last Lions tour.

He probably has underachieved with Wales, but then as I've said, he's perhaps overachieved at times. It's what gives him credit in the bank when he does underachieve. I don't see how- considering all the odds against him on a Lions Tour- you can call a Tour victory an underachievement and nothing more. That's just dull.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not really changed my stance here at all throughout. I believe he was too set in his ways and tried impose his Wales tactics on a better (as in the Lions players will always be a higher calibre than individual countries) broader set of players.

I know you have. The irony is that, in not changing your really simple understanding in the face of such much evidence and opinion to the contrary, and not providing any elaboration on why you hold those views, you're being...stubborn!

If you view win loss yes you're right big tick, but on setup of those 1st tests and getting the best out of those players not for me. Ifs and buts Iknow but without the pen miss in the 1st its 2 1 to aus and would that suddenly mean everything they did was rubbish? No, clearly not. My view is he went to Aus with a concrete view of how he was going to play, beat them up up front Roberts or Tuilagi playing his normal 12 role etc how you eloquently talked through. Not sure that really changed despite Warburton looking not100% Healy injured, Corbisiero, only the injury replacement, if I remember injured and it becoming obvious we didn't ever really have that control he thought he would get.

Tactics didn't really change, neither personelle. I was a Vunipola defender (much under rated scrummager back then) but why did he call Grant in and ignore for 80 min? Just felt a lot did go against the team but they didn't react they just went with the same when I don't think it suited the players we ended up with as it would the first choices at peak fitness.