Gatland - LIONS LEGEND

First topic message reminder :

LEGEND

Warren Gatland certainly splits opinion but love him or loath him no one should be surprised with how this tour is turning into a disaster.

Gatland is not a man manager, go and re-watch the 2009 Lions tour dvd, Gatland contribution on that tour was negativity, not once did he join in any team bonding.

When you only have a short time to bring together players to form one team you have to be able to manage that in a way friendships are made quickly.  Gatland isn't capable of that and struggles to buy into the idea that the Lions is about 4 Nations coming together. He also struggled when he took over the Welsh job and selected 13 players from one team.

He continued the same thinking in 2013 when the Lions crawled over the line against a very poor Aus team. Yes we won but the tour will not live long in the memory, in fact I've already forgot it apart from North lifting a player up whilst running.
I'm convinced the only reason BOD was dropped was to stick it to the IRFU (Gats former employer) I'm also convinced the only reason Robshaw was over looked to tour was to score points against the RFU by rejecting their Captain. (2017 was a repeat of this by not selecting Dylan)

2017 is turning into a classic way in which not to run a Lions tour, it even makes SCW 2005 effort look organized and well though out, we as Fans had so much hope going into this series. England smashing the Aussies in Aus and coming off the back of two 6 nations triumphs, we also had Ireland securing a famous win over the All Blacks and showing how to beat them and for once a strong, in form Scottish squad playing exciting rugby to pick from.


What did we get?
Gatland doing what he always does, picks what he knows even though they have been tried and tested and proven time and time again they are not up to the job against SH opposition, also moaning and placing blame elsewhere (clearly in his mind POM is the man responsible for the 1st defeat)
Even when he calls up some controversial squad members he refuses to use them saying he feels it would devalue the shirt after Fans and Pundits criticize him for doing so.

So why is anyone surprised Gatland has ignored form players in favor of the same old biased Poopie?  (Just to be clear AWJ & Warbs)

The man is a stubborn old has been that has let down Clowns everywhere.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cannot avoid. He actively caught it. Wrong decision for me.

Well if he cannot avoid then and it didn't interfere (which it didn't) then play should have continued. You could argue that Poite believed such but since NZ had the ball, a scrum is the only option. So to call a pen , absolutely wrong... a scrum was the only decision Poite could have given.

Sorry. Bit ambiguous there the rule says if you cannot avoid. I can't see how that can apply when he actively caught it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry. Bit ambiguous there the rule says if you cannot avoid. I can't see how that can apply when he actively caught it.

You protect your face, its instinct like blinking. Its unavoidable. He didn't stop NZ regaining possession nor picking the ball when someone else would have done. Had he meant it he would have held onto it. He barely had it for a split second.

Not for me.

marty2086 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Cant argue with the results. Certainly this tour has far exceded expectations.

You dont have to like the guy or his rugby, and you can acknowledge the Lions were outplayed on balance but thats not what history will record.

Gatland has delivered more than most thought possible.

Not really, I said a number of times the ABs were there for the taking especially in this third test yet the Lions were incapable of beating them. Too many players played below their abilities and players not up to the task. This was an AB team in a transitional period that should have been beaten, there will be plenty around the world watching thinking the ABs look vulnerable going into 2019

Nailed it.

I think perhaps if we had played Sexton Farrell from the get go it might have worked.We'll never know but one thing is for sure the NZ team do not do well under an aggressive defense.

David-Douglas wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Cant argue with the results. Certainly this tour has far exceded expectations.

You dont have to like the guy or his rugby, and you can acknowledge the Lions were outplayed on balance but thats not what history will record.

Gatland has delivered more than most thought possible.

Not really, I said a number of times the ABs were there for the taking especially in this third test yet the Lions were incapable of beating them. Too many players played below their abilities and players not up to the task. This was an AB team in a transitional period that should have been beaten, there will be plenty around the world watching thinking the ABs look vulnerable going into 2019

Nailed it.

The Lions were there for taking in tests 2 and 3 too.

It's a results based business. And despite intense criticism Warren Gatland has produced a result many didn't see as possible. I think the important thing in management is having a clear strategy and vision. It may not be the best strategy but often the result is more dictated in how well you stick to the strategy rather than making sudden changes that can confuse everyone.

Gatland has shown that the formula of picking the Test team from as few nations as possible delivers results. The Crown team is no longer about picking individuals but rather about picking combinations. Ireland and Scotland should quietly withdraw and leave it to the more familiar combinations from Eng and Wales to be their representatives. Warren isn't an enlightened coach but he is a winning selector.

Gats won't live his clown image down in NZ so will never get that job. So surely Gatland will now go for the set and accept the Boks tour in 2021?

The Great Aukster wrote:Gatland has shown that the formula of picking the Test team from as few nations as possible delivers results. The Crown team is no longer about picking individuals but rather about picking combinations. Ireland and Scotland should quietly withdraw and leave it to the more familiar combinations from Eng and Wales to be their representatives. Warren isn't an enlightened coach but he is a winning selector.

Gats won't live his clown image down in NZ so will never get that job. So surely Gatland will now go for the set and accept the Boks tour in 2021?

Regular international sides aren't necessarily about picking the best 15/23 individuals either though. You'll often find some combinations work well while 'better' individuals struggle to make the side. It's a mistake to shoehorn these guys in if they won't work in the system.

Given the short amount of time for the Lions to gel it's no surprise that combinations are chosen.

'Crown team' is an odd title.

This isn't particularly a comment on Gatland's choices or not, but I've been proved wrong by how thing turned out.

Why should Ireland leave?

This Lions (and the last) has worked because Gatland picked combinations not necessarily the 'best' players that so many disenfranchised fans wanted.
He has earned the right to continue selecting the Lions squads for as long as he wants to. That should keep the series close and therefore keep the money rolling in - which is all that matters.

The Great Aukster wrote:This Lions (and the last) has worked because Gatland picked combinations not necessarily the 'best' players that so many disenfranchised fans wanted.
He has earned the right to continue selecting the Lions squads for as long as he wants to. That should keep the series close and therefore keep the money rolling in - which is all that matters.

I appreciate that some Scottish fans feel a bit cheated by this tour and that's fair enough.

The money is important, but the series survives on more than that. Money isn't 'all' that matters. If it was just that we wouldn't have so many fans travelling to the other side of the world and so much interest on here. I'm been a big critic of Gatland, but I'm impressed with what he's achieved here.

This Lions side would probably have beaten the Aussies and SA.

The Great Aukster wrote:This Lions (and the last) has worked because Gatland picked combinations not necessarily the 'best' players that so many disenfranchised fans wanted.
He has earned the right to continue selecting the Lions squads for as long as he wants to. That should keep the series close and therefore keep the money rolling in - which is all that matters.

Well good job he never picked the best players the AB's would have been smashed. But what a stupid comment in the first place, of course he was picking the best players you oaf. It was all about a 3-0 trouncing in NZ until the kiwi saw that this was not going to happen. Now we will get all the excuses under the SH sun not one of them will be true just pathetic excuses. The AB's not so brilliant anymore still you can go play with boats for a while hahaha

Is the Rainbow Warrior still afloat?

The Great Aukster wrote:Is the Rainbow Warrior still afloat?

If the French sank Rainbow Warrior then a Frenchman helped keep the Lions afloat.

Sounds like a tie is fair enough.

A tie is fair but like Boyd the Hurricanes coach said it's like kissing your sister

ebop wrote:A tie is fair but like Boyd the Hurricanes coach said it's like kissing your sister

Whatever floats your boat (Rainbow Warrior pun absolutely intended).

The home countries do not need the revenue from the AB like one poster claimed, 5 of the 6N countries sell every ticket for any match, if NZ didn't tour, another game against A.N. Other would be arranged and the same revenue would be forthcoming. Granted tickets would sell quicker for the ABs, but in an hour rather than 2 days. Result the same.

Now the NH teams touring the SH countries is a lifeline for them, they would really struggle without the additional income. I cannot believe how small the grounds are in the worlds premier rugby nation, 50,000 max in Eden Park, less in Auckland. Is there no other revenue streams that would allow an 80,000 seater stadium?

Gatland will forever be remembered either as a hero (by the Welsh), or a villain (by the Scots). Everybody else has a more pragmatic attitude; does he favour the Welsh over the others, undoubtedly, better the devil you know. Would any other National Manager do different, probably not.

The fiasco with bringing in all those substandard Welshmen, when there were better Scots available will always taint his record. Then risking potential first team players by making them play the full 80 midweek, as he didn't want to "demean the Lions shirt" was dangerous and laughable in equal measure.

Taking AWJ and then starting him in all three matches in my opinion was a worse decision. There are 5 -6 far better locks that could have gone and played, who knows with Lawes playing and Henderson on the bench we may have won yesterday, things certainly improved when AWJ went off. Too much loyalty to a man that hasn't got close to what he was 4 years ago. Will he be part of the Welsh team for the next 6N..............

Successful, yes. But against a limited Australia already on the way down, the drawn series against the AB is significant though a major achievement.

The question will always be there though, could the B&I Lions have won the series if not for his love of players who wear red shirts at the expense of others.

Definitely the MARMITE man.

Griff wrote:

David-Douglas wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Cant argue with the results. Certainly this tour has far exceded expectations.

You dont have to like the guy or his rugby, and you can acknowledge the Lions were outplayed on balance but thats not what history will record.

Gatland has delivered more than most thought possible.

Not really, I said a number of times the ABs were there for the taking especially in this third test yet the Lions were incapable of beating them. Too many players played below their abilities and players not up to the task. This was an AB team in a transitional period that should have been beaten, there will be plenty around the world watching thinking the ABs look vulnerable going into 2019

Nailed it.

The Lions were there for taking in tests 2 and 3 too.

Yes they were, in parts of the 2nd test the Lions were worse than hopeless. They really should have put NZ away by a big margin, but unfortunately (for a couple of reasons) they weren't good enough to do that.

3rd test, NZ should have been out of sight in the first half, the team from a couple of years ago would have been, but this team isn't as good as that team.

The AB's do look vulnerable but by 2019 WC they will probably have sorted themselves out.

David-Douglas wrote:

Griff wrote:

David-Douglas wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Cant argue with the results. Certainly this tour has far exceded expectations.

You dont have to like the guy or his rugby, and you can acknowledge the Lions were outplayed on balance but thats not what history will record.

Gatland has delivered more than most thought possible.

Not really, I said a number of times the ABs were there for the taking especially in this third test yet the Lions were incapable of beating them. Too many players played below their abilities and players not up to the task. This was an AB team in a transitional period that should have been beaten, there will be plenty around the world watching thinking the ABs look vulnerable going into 2019

Nailed it.

The Lions were there for taking in tests 2 and 3 too.

Yes they were, in parts of the 2nd test the Lions were worse than hopeless. They really should have put NZ away by a big margin, but unfortunately (for a couple of reasons) they weren't good enough to do that.

3rd test, NZ should have been out of sight in the first half, the team from a couple of years ago would have been, but this team isn't as good as that team.

The AB's do look vulnerable but by 2019 WC they will probably have sorted themselves out.

Yes said before the tour the Lions have probably toured NZ one year too late.
Last year we neede the time to replace the 600 odd test caps we lost from 2015.
This year we had almost done that adequately enough bar the midfield and it showed.
In Smith and Nonu we probably had the most successful midfield ever.

Lions would have probably won last year with this side but may have also needed last year to produce this years side.

The Great Aukster wrote:Gatland has shown that the formula of picking the Test team from as few nations as possible delivers results. The Crown team is no longer about picking individuals but rather about picking combinations. Ireland and Scotland should quietly withdraw and leave it to the more familiar combinations from Eng and Wales to be their representatives. Warren isn't an enlightened coach but he is a winning selector.

Gats won't live his clown image down in NZ so will never get that job. So surely Gatland will now go for the set and accept the Boks tour in 2021?

Rubbish, Gets just passed the extended interview, the NZ public in general won't stand for the sort of shoite he was handed and like Henry and Hansen before him he will get the big desk after 2019 deep down knowing he, like them, owes it all to Wales.

Just my tuppence worth, if the Tour Manager an Englishman, John Spencer with no axe to grind, considers Gatland the best Coach in the World, delivering the results with the itinerary that he's had to put up with. That'll do for me. That is not to say I think he's the Best Coach in the World, but he is a Legend.

Having followed Lions Tours for over 50 years, I would put this years efforts just slightly below 71 and 74, but way above any other, yes there were mistakes made, the Geography 6 was misplaced, not because of the numbers called up but by some of the players. I agree with the 6 coming from Wales and Scotland, but if selected on merit it should have been 4 Scots and 2 Welsh, or even 5 to 1, at least the only ones to get game time were the Scots.

I don't understand any of this. By our own low standards and expectations Gatland seems to have acquitted himself?

That by any measure is absolute baw sacks.

He picked 6 players because of their location, they copped a lot of flak and so did he. He then went onto say that he didn't give them meaningful game time because of a backlash from pundits and the press? Give me a break!!!

I hear so often on here that :

"like him or loathe him, Gatland sticks to his guns and doesn't care what people think of him"

I'm calling that out as BS because if he did he would have backed his geographical 6, sent them on against the Hurricanes and won the last match for his midweek team who have put in a hell of a lot of effort and deserved a win in their final match. He has treated that midweek side with utter contempt.

Winning test 2 and drawing test 3 because Barrett can't nail his goals does not exonerate Gatland for me. He was a dick before the tour and he's a dick now.

Although the clown nose thing was funny, kudos...

wayne wrote:Just my tuppence worth, if the Tour Manager an Englishman, John Spencer with no axe to grind, considers Gatland the best Coach in the World, delivering the results with the itinerary that he's had to put up with. That'll do for me. That is not to say I think he's the Best Coach in the World, but he is a Legend.

Having followed Lions Tours for over 50 years, I would put this years efforts just slightly below 71 and 74, but way above any other, yes there were mistakes made, the Geography 6 was misplaced, not because of the numbers called up but by some of the players. I agree with the 6 coming from Wales and Scotland, but if selected on merit it should have been 4 Scots and 2 Welsh, or even 5 to 1, at least the only ones to get game time were the Scots.

Yeah I'd definitely expect the tour manager to call his colleague a useless pr1ck

I am no fan of Gatland but he did a lot better than I expected results wise.

Reminds me of the Napoleon quote -

I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good.


Gatland has rode his luck in 2 Lions series but he's got results.

A draw isn't a win sure but to draw a series vs the best side in the world on their patch I didn't think was possible for Gatland.

His selections whilst not to everyone's tastes could have been worse.

Gatland - legend or potato head? I'd call it honours even.

beshocked wrote:I am no fan of Gatland but he did a lot better than I expected results wise.

Reminds me of the Napoleon quote -

I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good.


Gatland has rode his luck in 2 Lions series but he's got results.

A draw isn't a win sure but to draw a series vs the best side in the world on their patch I didn't think was possible for Gatland.

His selections whilst not to everyone's tastes could have been worse.

If results are all that matter this tour was an amazing success. However it has absolutely destroyed the Lions ethos for me. Picking players who were closest instead of the best is just rancid. I'd rather the team lost by being the Lions as opposed to won or drawn by being whatever the hell Gatland, Farrell and Howley have created. '09 has been the best tour of the pro era (for me anyway) and we lost it.

You have to pick the best players for the Lions otherwise the concept is just a farce. I can't imagine if WP Nel, Zander Fagerson and Simon Bergehn all became injured Toonie would call me up because I'm closer to Murrayfield than Jon Welsh at Newcastle.

To pick his "geographical 6" and literally sacrifice his midweek team to make a point of not playing them because it devalued the jersey is just spiteful and foolish. Reality check Warren the devalued the jersey the moment you called them up if you didn't think they were good enough!

I never want to see Gatland in charge of the Lions again.

Despite all the whinging Scots throwing their toys out, Gatland will go down a the coach who never lost a Lions series. That is something to be proud of.

I seriously don't get you guys either. If I could be bothered trawling through old posts I'll wager I could find posts from all of you guys bemoaning Gatland's coaching of your national team:

His terrible tactics.
His over reliance on guys like Jamie Roberts.
Lack of attacking threat.
His record against SH teams.
The stagnant state of your team's development.
Picking Warburton over Tipuric.
Picking out of form and injured players.

Just because he he rode his luck and results went our way, doesn't mean he is now all of a sudden a god of rugby coaching. The stick he was getting from you guys was insane!

I wonder if NZ will let Gats have a sabbatical to coach the Lions against SA?

If they did,I bet AWJ would not be playing or a number of other iffy selections

Cyril wrote:I wonder if NZ will let Gats have a sabbatical to coach the Lions against SA?

He'd certainly fit the bill for nearly everybody. Not a current home nations coach and a proven winner.

Comes with the baggage of being perceived as biased now though so wouldn't be an uncontroversial pick. A lot changes in 2 to 3 years so bide our time before rushing in.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry. Bit ambiguous there the rule says if you cannot avoid. I can't see how that can apply when he actively caught it.

You protect your face, its instinct like blinking. Its unavoidable. He didn't stop NZ regaining possession nor picking the ball when someone else would have done. Had he meant it he would have held onto it. He barely had it for a split second.

There's so many facets to this.

Clearly, it's subjective as to whether or not Owens' reaction was instinctive and whether or not NZ would have gained an advantage (and therefore whether it was accidental offside or offside). I will say this though, I've never seen that officiated in any other way than to award a penalty.

But it doesn't even just come down to that. Read was in front of the kicker at the kick off (there are pics floating around twitter that pretty clearly show this). You might say this is hardly ever penalised, and you'd be right. But does that mean it should be ignored? When cross kicking, often players are in front of the kicker, but if the move doesn't go anywhere it's never checked. If a try is scored, they will nearly always check because it's suddenly just become a lot more significant.

Read also did not regain the ball, yet impeded Williams in the air. Now to the question of fairly or not. Read had eyes on the ball, so I'm pretty comfortable that he hadn't leapt up with the intention of clattering Williams. However, it's quite reasonable to suggest he was not in a position to ever catch it or palm it back (he was at full stretch and didn't get a fingertip on it). I'd suggest the best he could have managed was to knock it on. When I think about how a deliberate knock on is officiated, it doesn't matter if in the players mind they were genuinely just instinctively reaching out to try catch the ball, if they didn't have a realistic chance of doing so the ref will ping them. It could be argued (and has been, by Jonathan Kaplan no less) that Read should have being penalised.

Also there are other images that appear to show that where Williams spilled the ball in relation to the pitch markings, and where Owens caught the ball in relation to the pitch markings means the ball actually travelled backwards, with the greater momentum of the players contributing to the illusion that the ball went forwards. If that's the case then Owens is perfectly legal and his catch is a moot point.

Above all though, there are plenty of contentious decisions in a game, and in each one of them are several smaller incidents that are open to interpretation. You simply can't reduce a game played over 80 minutes down to one decision. And to be fair to the NZ players, they haven't. People often try attach more significance to a particular decision because, as in this case, it happens at the end of a game, but if an earlier decision changes, it would change the entire course of a game. How much? no one knows. And no one really knows how the penalty would have gone. Barrett could have slipped. Or he could have just carried on his kicking form and missed. There was time for the kick off, who's to say NZ wouldn't have infringed off the KO.

What a series though!!

Agree with all of that.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Just because he he rode his luck and results went our way, doesn't mean he is now all of a sudden a god of rugby coaching. The stick he was getting from you guys was insane!

Oh another whinging Scot... Actually Gatland is a very successful coach. You only have to look at his credentials for proof of that. That's right, he's far better than Townsend AND Cotter. I think most of Gatland's welsh-stick comes from Turks of west Wales who want to see 15 Scarlets players in the starting line-up; yep in West Wales they're as delusional as you lot. The rest of us can acknowledge he's a good coach, give him the respect he deserves and admit some things require change. I'd like to see a few changes to the team in the coming season. I'd love to see Gatland dump Howley and McBryde too.... Can't believe he's still carrying them, which is a monumental achievement in itself.

mikey_dragon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Just because he he rode his luck and results went our way, doesn't mean he is now all of a sudden a god of rugby coaching. The stick he was getting from you guys was insane!

Oh another whinging Scot... Actually Gatland is a very successful coach. You only have to look at his credentials for proof of that. That's right, he's far better than Townsend AND Cotter. I think most of Gatland's welsh-stick comes from Turks of west Wales who want to see 15 Scarlets players in the starting line-up; yep in West Wales they're as delusional as you lot. The rest of us can acknowledge he's a good coach, give him the respect he deserves and admit some things require change. I'd like to see a few changes to the team in the coming season. I'd love to see Gatland dump Howley and McBryde too.... Can't believe he's still carrying them, which is a monumental achievement in itself.

If he's far better than surely that means your players have over inflated reputations right? Can't have it both ways.

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Just because he he rode his luck and results went our way, doesn't mean he is now all of a sudden a god of rugby coaching. The stick he was getting from you guys was insane!

Oh another whinging Scot... Actually Gatland is a very successful coach. You only have to look at his credentials for proof of that. That's right, he's far better than Townsend AND Cotter. I think most of Gatland's welsh-stick comes from Turks of west Wales who want to see 15 Scarlets players in the starting line-up; yep in West Wales they're as delusional as you lot. The rest of us can acknowledge he's a good coach, give him the respect he deserves and admit some things require change. I'd like to see a few changes to the team in the coming season. I'd love to see Gatland dump Howley and McBryde too.... Can't believe he's still carrying them, which is a monumental achievement in itself.

If he's far better than surely that means your players have over inflated reputations right? Can't have it both ways.

Not sure what that even means. Fact is Gatland has a more successful coaching career than said coaches. And some of you were telling us that Cotter was the better coach. Bonkers.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Just because he he rode his luck and results went our way, doesn't mean he is now all of a sudden a god of rugby coaching. The stick he was getting from you guys was insane!

Oh another whinging Scot... Actually Gatland is a very successful coach. You only have to look at his credentials for proof of that. That's right, he's far better than Townsend AND Cotter. I think most of Gatland's welsh-stick comes from Turks of west Wales who want to see 15 Scarlets players in the starting line-up; yep in West Wales they're as delusional as you lot. The rest of us can acknowledge he's a good coach, give him the respect he deserves and admit some things require change. I'd like to see a few changes to the team in the coming season. I'd love to see Gatland dump Howley and McBryde too.... Can't believe he's still carrying them, which is a monumental achievement in itself.

If he's far better than surely that means your players have over inflated reputations right? Can't have it both ways.

Not sure what that even means. Fact is Gatland has a more successful coaching career than said coaches. And some of you were telling us that Cotter was the better coach. Bonkers.

What that means is this.

You can't say Gatland is a better coach than say Cotter unless you view them from an adjusted viewpoint. Would Gatland do a better job as Scotland coach and Cotter a worse job as Wales coach....

If Gatland is a better coach then you can say he gets results that Cotter wouldn't right... still follow the rationale?

If thats the case then what you're saying is that Cotter does disservice to the Scottish players (in respect to Gatland) and gives credit to his welsh players meaning that.

Welsh players are over inflated
Scottish players are under inflated.

That's what your assertions means.

Regardless of anything, a better coach will get better results else they wouldn't get paid what they get paid, hold the jobs they hold.

When Cotter took over Scotland they were 10th in the world with 75.16 ranking points. He left them with 82.18 ranking points and 5th in the world... an improvement of 7.08 points and 5 places in the table (their highest ever). That's not bad in anyone's book. He's a pretty decent coach in my mind and the Scottish team had they had him for longer they would have done even better.

Maybe Gatland is a better coach although 2 wins in 35 vs SA, AUS and NZ is kinda rubbish.. given the great players he has right??? Doesn't mean I think he is a worse coach  (he is a very good coach)... just saying if he was so much better and his players were also better, his results would also be better.

What FA said.

If Gatland is so good, how have Wales been so pants over the last 2 seasons?

Or, as has been rationalised Wales players are significantly better than Scotland's players hence why more traveled with the Lions. That's all well and good. How come super coach Gatland hasn't had them playing very well?

You can point the finger at Howley all you want, but we all know who was really in charge of Wales over the 6N. There is a reason Sam and James Davies weren't getting a crack of the whip... And that's because what Gatland says goes..

He's a better coach across all aspects. It's that simple.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/report?gameId=291235&league=289234 snigger

Gatland could have a very good year yet, but to do so Wales have to kick on and beat all the Southern visitors in November, if he cleans up I can see him getting coach of the year.

Wow isn't that a grown up post. We Scottish fans have already had a good dissection of that game. Plenty of reasons why we lost. A very light weight centre partnership, the climate (it was 29 degrees in the shade), home advantage Fiji are a great side and playing them at home is a challenge for any team more tier 1 nations should be playing them in Fiji.

What was most pleasing is that it gave Townsend a good look at some fringe players. When Scotland have all of their players fit do you really think we'll play a centre partnership of Horne and Grigg with Jackson at 10?

Townsend rightly had a wee experiment. Happy to lose a game like that if we learned stuff. Too often we have had good summers and good autumn tests. I'm glad Townsend had a wee play, he knows that didn't work and I doubt we'll see that combination again. Winning is all well and good but learning from these matches is more important. We had 2 cracking games where we were close to full strength, why not roll the dice for the 3rd match?

Also full credit to Fiji. They were a lot better than us. They tackled ferociously and their offloading game was sublime.

mikey_dragon wrote:He's a better coach across all aspects. It's that simple.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/report?gameId=291235&league=289234 snigger

that's fine to suggest. But what that means is that your players aren't as good as you assert or at least... Scottish players would be better under Gatland.

Its not an argument that suits a position where one would say that none or few of the scottish players are good enough for the lions. Because that would suggest they're better than what their results suggest.

For a team with an inferior coach to be placed 5th in the world and have 82 ranking points means that their players are actually quite decent. Just imagine what they could achieve under Gatland right? Whats the best he's ever achieved with Wales not including those crazy RWC inter competition rankings?  4th? Has he ever achieved more than 84 ranking points?

So 1 place and at 1 ranking point? Even with his better players?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Wow isn't that a grown up post. We Scottish fans have already had a good dissection of that game. Plenty of reasons why we lost. A very light weight centre partnership, the climate (it was 29 degrees in the shade), home advantage Fiji are a great side and playing them at home is a challenge for any team more tier 1 nations should be playing them in Fiji.

What was most pleasing is that it gave Townsend a good look at some fringe players. When Scotland have all of their players fit do you really think we'll play a centre partnership of Horne and Grigg with Jackson at 10?

Townsend rightly had a wee experiment. Happy to lose a game like that if we learned stuff. Too often we have had good summers and good autumn tests. I'm glad Townsend had a wee play, he knows that didn't work and I doubt we'll see that combination again. Winning is all well and good but learning from these matches is more important. We had 2 cracking games where we were close to full strength, why not roll the dice for the 3rd match?

Yeah it was like you're lot going on and on about Japan. Yeah even Japan back then could beat Howley-McBryde type Wales team. Great isn't it?

aucklandlaurie wrote:Gatland could have a very good year yet, but to do so Wales have to kick on and beat all the Southern visitors in November, if he cleans up I can see him getting coach of the year.

Aren't we playing NZ? That's a straight-up loss. I think we face off against the big 3 and Georgia. That's a very tough series post-Lions year.

Ah come on folks. He won Heineken cups, the premiership, grand slams, lions tour, world cup semi finals, dragged Ireland out if the dark ages, won the air New Zealand cup, got a draw against NZ who were odds on to win the series 3-0.

He has his faults but the man has a great CV.

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:He's a better coach across all aspects. It's that simple.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/report?gameId=291235&league=289234 snigger

that's fine to suggest. But what that means is that your players aren't as good as you assert or at least... Scottish players would be better under Gatland.

Its not an argument that suits a position where one would say that none or few of the scottish players are good enough for the lions. Because that would suggest they're better than what their results suggest.

For a team with an inferior coach to be placed 5th in the world and have 82 ranking points means that their players are actually quite decent. Just imagine what they could achieve under Gatland right? Whats the best he's ever achieved with Wales not including those crazy RWC inter competition rankings?  4th? Has he ever achieved more than 84 ranking points?

So 1 place and at 1 ranking point? Even with his better players?

Wales have a few individuals who are better than their Scottish equivalents but across the board they're of the same capabilities. Unless the Welsh teams can consistently develop players like Glasgow have done then we'll fall behind.

Results matter. Gatland has many good results throughout his career, turning many teams from zero's to hero's. It's not really an argument to be honest with you, he's a very good coach and yes the best Lions coach of the pro era. Cotter is good, yes. He has great potential but is a few years behind Gatland so naturally wouldn't have the results and as you can't really measure on capability (as much as you try) then that's another non-arguement. The Scottish dislike Gatland a lot so they're obviously going to claim any coach they can think of is better.

I'm not sure why you're still clinging onto one year where you beat a Wales team coached by Howley, it's not a great achievement. Even then we were a Cuthbert tackle attempt and cheating Frenchman away from keeping normal service. Wales regress under Howley and Scotland finish one place higher, coincidence? Just so you know I think there has been improvement under Townsend in a short space of time and that's down to good coaches and players working well together.