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.

The 2001 lads had a good time on tour, just didn't enjoy the rugby as the kiwi killjoy in charge was a complete Buffon.

Sounds familiar!

Griff wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:RIP the Lions.  'God I hope not.'

My relationship with the Lions is a bit like marrying a beautiful women, she has it all and everyone notices her when you walk into a room with her arm in arm, the excitement of being with her is unbearable. but I haven't had it away with her since 2009!!!

 Is she dead?

In a way, The spirt of the Lions died back in 2009.

Was really hopeful this tour would bring it back to life.

Umm, pretty sure the spirit of the Lions died when the game turned professional. 1997 was the last really Lions tour. Showing your youth, TIGHThead?

The only two tours in the pro era that had the Lions spirit both involved McGeeghan.

Gatland, Roundtree and Farrell simply don't understand what it is about.

Winning the last series was the worst thing could have happened as it masked the negatives of the tour. The Wallabies were a  very poor side and more scrutiny should have been done on the tour and performances overall, which weren't that great.  

Last time out Gats backed his Welsh favorites, knowing they were controversial selection and believes that because they subsequently repaid his faith with the result that he was vindicated last time and will be this time too with AWJ and Warbs but he is misguided.

The Lions coach needs to view each player on merit irrespective of nationality and be neutral and fair in selection. The belief that the result justifies the selection is wrong, each player needs to believe that they have a fair opportunity to be selected or the concept does not work and we are seeing this again on this tour.

The next tour should be jointly led by SCW and Gats backed up by Austin Healy, Keith Wood, Jiffy and a Scottish bloke. Mel Gibson, maybe.

or Eddie Jones.

Cyril wrote: and a Scottish bloke. Mel Gibson, maybe.

Only if he selects Shingler.

Gooseberry wrote:

Cyril wrote: and a Scottish bloke. Mel Gibson, maybe.

Only if he selects Shingler.

Everyone should have the freedom (FREEDOM!) to play for whoever they wish.

rodders wrote:

Gatland, Roundtree and Farrell simply don't understand what it is about.

Thats a bit of bold statement form someone whos not even close to getting Rowntree's name right. Of the three hes at least been a Lions tourist (where Mcheechan was a coach) and should know a lot better than any of us what its about.

Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft):




Graham Rowntree (aka Wiggy):




Separated at birth.

Wow

Don't let one win exonerate this absolute fudd of a man. SBW was stupid and Barrett had a howler from the tee.

Sorry to sound bitter and horrible but I was nearly physically sick watching that match. I'm so happy for Warburton and the rest of the players so happy for them.

The thought of Gatland being seen as a Lions legend genuinely turns my stomach.

Can't please everyone.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Don't let one win exonerate this absolute fudd of a man. SBW was stupid and Barrett had a howler from the tee.

Sorry to sound bitter and horrible but I was nearly physically sick watching that match. I'm so happy for Warburton and the rest of the players so happy for them.

The thought of Gatland being seen as a Lions legend genuinely turns my stomach.

One win against 14. Only 3 points in it. NZ backlash next week....?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Don't let one win exonerate this absolute fudd of a man. SBW was stupid and Barrett had a howler from the tee.

Sorry to sound bitter and horrible but I was nearly physically sick watching that match. I'm so happy for Warburton and the rest of the players so happy for them.

The thought of Gatland being seen as a Lions legend genuinely turns my stomach.

Doesn't make any odds how they got the win. Fact is, most said 3-0 NZ and he has at least made us win a test. Can't take that away from him.

Much like 4 years ago gatland has split opinion. I think he's made plenty of mistakes but fair play we've won today and even done it by him moving away from the safety first option at 12 and 15.

Trouble is, we have only just squeaked by a 14-man NZ in horrible conditions. Next week, I think regardless of whatever team the Lions put out, NZ are going to want to prove a point. I think that they will show just how good they can be next week.

No disrespect to the Lions, but they've shown me nothing that expects anything otherwise.

I think there's a question mark on how nz react. Thinking back to Ireland after Chicago I felt they pushed it too far and clearly there weer areas where they could have been penalised a little more sternly than they were. Have they learned from that? I wouldn't put it past them but this is a real pressure game. If the lions themselves start well and settle it could just be our year.

RiscaGame wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Don't let one win exonerate this absolute fudd of a man. SBW was stupid and Barrett had a howler from the tee.

Sorry to sound bitter and horrible but I was nearly physically sick watching that match. I'm so happy for Warburton and the rest of the players so happy for them.

The thought of Gatland being seen as a Lions legend genuinely turns my stomach.

Doesn't make any odds how they got the win. Fact is, most said 3-0 NZ and he has at least made us win a test. Can't take that away from him.

First bit in bold.
It matters to me. A Lions win without soul, without inclusion dividing opinion... It's revolting. I so wanted to get behind the team today, but couldn't, as a neutral the spectacle was ruined when SBW went off.

Second bit in bold, I can't take it away from him, and that's what's giving me the boak.

Gatland has wee weed all over the Lions jersey. A win in the pouring rain against a stuttering 14 man New Zealand who left a silly amount of kickable points on the pitch proves nothing, at least not to me.

I'm delighted for the players, because they deserved it. Gatland doesn't though, he was a dick before the match and he's a dick now.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Don't let one win exonerate this absolute fudd of a man. SBW was stupid and Barrett had a howler from the tee.

Sorry to sound bitter and horrible but I was nearly physically sick watching that match. I'm so happy for Warburton and the rest of the players so happy for them.

The thought of Gatland being seen as a Lions legend genuinely turns my stomach.

how terribly over dramatic you are.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Don't let one win exonerate this absolute fudd of a man. SBW was stupid and Barrett had a howler from the tee.

Sorry to sound bitter and horrible but I was nearly physically sick watching that match. I'm so happy for Warburton and the rest of the players so happy for them.

The thought of Gatland being seen as a Lions legend genuinely turns my stomach.

Doesn't make any odds how they got the win. Fact is, most said 3-0 NZ and he has at least made us win a test. Can't take that away from him.

First bit in bold.
It matters to me. A Lions win without soul, without inclusion dividing opinion... It's revolting. I so wanted to get behind the team today, but couldn't, as a neutral the spectacle was ruined when SBW went off.

Second bit in bold, I can't take it away from him, and that's what's giving me the boak.

Gatland has wee weed all over the Lions jersey. A win in the pouring rain against a stuttering 14 man New Zealand who left a silly amount of kickable points on the pitch proves nothing, at least not to me.

I'm delighted for the players, because they deserved it. Gatland doesn't though, he was a dick before the match and he's a dick now.  

I don't wish to be rude and have no intention of continuing these silly arguments that go on for pages and pages, but had the Lions lost today by 3 points, but with a 15 that included Laidlaw, Watson, Gray and Seymour, would you have felt happier?

Also, do you also disregard the Scottish win against Australia in the rain a few years ago?

Now I didn't agree with the calling up of the 'Geographical 6', Gatland should have had more foresight to approach the best 6 wherever they were in the world to use them in the midweek matches, but fair play to the whole playing and coaching squad, to win a test on this tour is a pretty good achievement, to win a series would be incredible.

chris_501 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Don't let one win exonerate this absolute fudd of a man. SBW was stupid and Barrett had a howler from the tee.

Sorry to sound bitter and horrible but I was nearly physically sick watching that match. I'm so happy for Warburton and the rest of the players so happy for them.

The thought of Gatland being seen as a Lions legend genuinely turns my stomach.

Doesn't make any odds how they got the win. Fact is, most said 3-0 NZ and he has at least made us win a test. Can't take that away from him.

First bit in bold.
It matters to me. A Lions win without soul, without inclusion dividing opinion... It's revolting. I so wanted to get behind the team today, but couldn't, as a neutral the spectacle was ruined when SBW went off.

Second bit in bold, I can't take it away from him, and that's what's giving me the boak.

Gatland has wee weed all over the Lions jersey. A win in the pouring rain against a stuttering 14 man New Zealand who left a silly amount of kickable points on the pitch proves nothing, at least not to me.

I'm delighted for the players, because they deserved it. Gatland doesn't though, he was a dick before the match and he's a dick now.  

I don't wish to be rude and have no intention of continuing these silly arguments that go on for pages and pages, but had the Lions lost today by 3 points, but with a 15 that included Laidlaw, Watson, Gray and Seymour, would you have felt happier?

Also, do you also disregard the Scottish win against Australia in the rain a few years ago?

Now I didn't agree with the calling up of the 'Geographical 6', Gatland should have had more foresight to approach the best 6 wherever they were in the world to use them in the midweek matches, but fair play to the whole playing and coaching squad, to win a test on this tour is a pretty good achievement, to win a series would be incredible.

well said.. At least the series is still to play for.

No9 wrote:

chris_501 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Don't let one win exonerate this absolute fudd of a man. SBW was stupid and Barrett had a howler from the tee.

Sorry to sound bitter and horrible but I was nearly physically sick watching that match. I'm so happy for Warburton and the rest of the players so happy for them.

The thought of Gatland being seen as a Lions legend genuinely turns my stomach.

Doesn't make any odds how they got the win. Fact is, most said 3-0 NZ and he has at least made us win a test. Can't take that away from him.

First bit in bold.
It matters to me. A Lions win without soul, without inclusion dividing opinion... It's revolting. I so wanted to get behind the team today, but couldn't, as a neutral the spectacle was ruined when SBW went off.

Second bit in bold, I can't take it away from him, and that's what's giving me the boak.

Gatland has wee weed all over the Lions jersey. A win in the pouring rain against a stuttering 14 man New Zealand who left a silly amount of kickable points on the pitch proves nothing, at least not to me.

I'm delighted for the players, because they deserved it. Gatland doesn't though, he was a dick before the match and he's a dick now.  

I don't wish to be rude and have no intention of continuing these silly arguments that go on for pages and pages, but had the Lions lost today by 3 points, but with a 15 that included Laidlaw, Watson, Gray and Seymour, would you have felt happier?

Also, do you also disregard the Scottish win against Australia in the rain a few years ago?

Now I didn't agree with the calling up of the 'Geographical 6', Gatland should have had more foresight to approach the best 6 wherever they were in the world to use them in the midweek matches, but fair play to the whole playing and coaching squad, to win a test on this tour is a pretty good achievement, to win a series would be incredible.

 well said.. At least the series is still to play for.

Laidlaw is not good enough, he doesn't deserve a test spot. As for Watson and Gray I don't know if they would have been good enough either, and neither do you but worst of all neither does that pleb Gatland, since he didn't bring them along to find out.

Seymour, despite being the top try scorer he's deemed not good enough either...

We are simply excluded from this whole event and to be honest I am just jealous and bitter about this whole situation.

There isn't a single Scot on tour who clearly out ranks an encumbent; Hogg was shown up in his brief appearances and Seymour, while a solid mid weaker, spoiled a sitter last week.

Gwlad wrote:There isn't a single Scot on tour who clearly out ranks an encumbent; Hogg was shown up in his brief appearances and Seymour, while a solid mid weaker, spoiled a sitter last week.

But is still the leading try scorer.

You are probably right there aren't any Scots better than the incumbents. I sincerely think Watson, Russell and Gray if he was fit could have challenged those incumbents but were never given a chance by the pleb known as Gatland.

He couldn't even give Russell or the geographical 6 a chance off the bench against the canes. Citing pressure from the media for his decision...

Look I don't want to spoil the win for people but I'm also pretty disappointed not to be caring about today. It was special, I know it was but I feel nothing more than indifference towards it. Which is a real shame.

LondonTiger wrote:Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft):




Graham Rowntree (aka Wiggy):




Separated at birth.

Only one got shafted then?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:There isn't a single Scot on tour who clearly out ranks an encumbent; Hogg was shown up in his brief appearances and Seymour, while a solid mid weaker, spoiled a sitter last week.

But is still the leading try scorer.

You are probably right there aren't any Scots better than the incumbents. I sincerely think Watson, Russell and Gray if he was fit could have challenged those incumbents but were never given a chance by the pleb known as Gatland.

He couldn't even give Russell or the geographical 6 a chance off the bench against the canes. Citing pressure from the media for his decision...

Look I don't want to spoil the win for people but I'm also pretty disappointed not to be caring about today. It was special, I know it was but I feel nothing more than indifference towards it. Which is a real shame.

I agree with you about Watson and Nel, if fit, would have been a real asset. Gray is debatable considering the Lions strength in that position. I do not see Gray as more unlucky than Launchbury.

Russell, like it or not, ruined his chances in the England game when he essentially blew up under pressure. Throwing hail Mary passes in his own 22 after only twenty minutes would not give the Lions management confidence that he would react well under the severe strain of playing the All Blacks.

Exiledinborders wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:There isn't a single Scot on tour who clearly out ranks an encumbent; Hogg was shown up in his brief appearances and Seymour, while a solid mid weaker, spoiled a sitter last week.

But is still the leading try scorer.

You are probably right there aren't any Scots better than the incumbents. I sincerely think Watson, Russell and Gray if he was fit could have challenged those incumbents but were never given a chance by the pleb known as Gatland.

He couldn't even give Russell or the geographical 6 a chance off the bench against the canes. Citing pressure from the media for his decision...

Look I don't want to spoil the win for people but I'm also pretty disappointed not to be caring about today. It was special, I know it was but I feel nothing more than indifference towards it. Which is a real shame.

I agree with you about Watson and Nel, if fit, would have been a real asset. Gray is debatable considering the Lions strength in that position. I do not see Gray as more unlucky than Launchbury.

Russell, like it or not, ruined his chances in the England game when he essentially blew up under pressure. Throwing hail Mary passes in his own 22 after only twenty minutes would not give the Lions management confidence that he would react well under the severe strain of playing the All Blacks.

So they chose to ignore the pressure he's already dealt with against Leicester when Glasgow played them, or when he went up against Carter and Stade, or against Dan Biggar against Wales...

Weve been measured by a cooked yard stick by Gatland.

I doubt they ignored it. Im sure they considered it, before deciding that Farrell, Sexton and Biggar were ultimately better options who have alos performed in high pressure environments.

Fully understand why Scots would feel marginalised by lack of representation. But at the same time I dont think they have been particularly hard done by.

The tour might have come a year or two too early for Scotland, who have been moving in the right direction but still have been behind England, Ireland and Wales for a long time.

Problem is the AWJ thing becomes like the JD2 for BOD thing last time around. The Lions won and somehow this single action becomes the defining reason as to why. Last time it would not have changed the result had BOD played instead of JD2. This time around everything I have read has said that AWJ played well, and I can believe it. But nobody is going to convince me that had Launchbury or Gray played instead that they would not have done at least as well.

Both are hard working smart guys, bigger and fitter than Jones. They don't miss tackles and they last all game.

If there is a lot of talent in certain positions then good players will miss out on chances, but it does not always mean that the ones who do get the chance to play are somehow better.

I agree lostinwales. Davies didnt determine the result last time nor did AWJ this time.

AWJ was good for 10 mins in this match then look blown - but the fact he is undroppable means he will start again

Let not forget, we were terrible against 14 men, and while the rain has some bearing, the amount of knock on,s penatlies, losing scrums (against 14 mean) and generally playing like people new to rugby should not be ignored by a lucky win against 14 men

Reading the news it looks like the Lions played the best game ever and suddely are world beater.

Papering over a very insepide and low quality performace

Improved physicality in the pack from the first test, but  I thought the Lions were actually better overall in the first test. New Zealand were just ruthless that day both off the tee and with ball in hand.

The conditions, NZ losing a player and in general a worse NZ performance in the second test evened it up.

The 20 minute period of the second half up until Lions got the try was dreadful stuff.

Lions were better in the first test, but NZ were dire in this game. Poor coaching decisions, dreadful kicking, dirty tackling. They were handed the game on a platter but Barrett is a mediocre at best kicker.

Haha was nice though and seemed slightly different to the 741 other Hahas on the tour

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:There isn't a single Scot on tour who clearly out ranks an encumbent; Hogg was shown up in his brief appearances and Seymour, while a solid mid weaker, spoiled a sitter last week.

But is still the leading try scorer.

You are probably right there aren't any Scots better than the incumbents. I sincerely think Watson, Russell and Gray if he was fit could have challenged those incumbents but were never given a chance by the pleb known as Gatland.

He couldn't even give Russell or the geographical 6 a chance off the bench against the canes. Citing pressure from the media for his decision...

Look I don't want to spoil the win for people but I'm also pretty disappointed not to be caring about today. It was special, I know it was but I feel nothing more than indifference towards it. Which is a real shame.

I agree with you about Watson and Nel, if fit, would have been a real asset. Gray is debatable considering the Lions strength in that position. I do not see Gray as more unlucky than Launchbury.

Russell, like it or not, ruined his chances in the England game when he essentially blew up under pressure. Throwing hail Mary passes in his own 22 after only twenty minutes would not give the Lions management confidence that he would react well under the severe strain of playing the All Blacks.

So they chose to ignore the pressure he's already dealt with against Leicester when Glasgow played them, or when he went up against Carter and Stade, or against Dan Biggar against Wales...

Weve been measured by a cooked yard stick by Gatland.

He did pretty good against the Aussies as well a couple of weeks back...

catchweight wrote:Improved physicality in the pack from the first test, but  I thought the Lions were actually better overall in the first test. New Zealand were just ruthless that day both off the tee and with ball in hand.

The conditions, NZ losing a player and in general a worse NZ performance in the second test evened it up.

The 20 minute period of the second half up until Lions got the try was dreadful stuff.

I thought they took both tries very very easily; I'd say NZ defense looks average at best

They were missing a man for almost 60mins to be fair, gaps were always going to appear.

Gwlad wrote:Lions were better in the first test, but NZ were dire in this game. Poor coaching decisions, dreadful kicking, dirty tackling. They were handed the game on a platter but Barrett is a mediocre at best kicker.

Haha was nice though and seemed slightly different to the 741 other Hahas on the tour

Lions were better first test?

Without An unstructured try from a nowhere, never actually one like it seen here by a Lions based side before and a consolation try in the 82nd minute the score was 30-3.

And the day I say the ABs are 'better' when losing by fifteen points is the day I've lost it.

My the ABs do things to the perspective of others.

It's like the ozzies who said they were soooo unlucky not to win the World Cup final. Deluded.

Looks like you have mis interpretended the comment.

The Lions performance in the first test, was better than the Lions performance in the second test. Not the Lions performance in the first test was better than New Zealands performance in the first test.

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Lions were better in the first test, but NZ were dire in this game. Poor coaching decisions, dreadful kicking, dirty tackling. They were handed the game on a platter but Barrett is a mediocre at best kicker.

Haha was nice though and seemed slightly different to the 741 other Hahas on the tour

Lions were better first test?

Without An unstructured try from a nowhere, never actually one like it seen here by a Lions based side before and a consolation try in the 82nd minute the score was 30-3.

And the day I say the ABs are 'better' when losing by fifteen points is the day I've lost it.

My the ABs do things to the perspective of others.

It's like the ozzies who said they were soooo unlucky not to win the World Cup final. Deluded.

The ABs have enough of their own troubles I suggest you concentrate on those, like Hansen's ridiculous decision to weaken his pack, which was the point of difference in Test 1. Taking off Kaino was fatal. Like Barrett's inability to slot simple kicks, Naholo's 'head injury' and the disgrace that is SBW...just glad that a refeee has finally taught them the lesson they have to play by the same rules s the rest us....and now, no Smith, No Crotty and no SBW. Bet the Haha will be good though

Disgrace that is SBW? Get a grip.

Scottrf wrote:Disgrace that is SBW? Get a grip.

No thanks, its him that needs to get a grip, straightened his arm and dropped his shoulder - even clenched his fist- into another players head, you can pretend you're a new man but he just showed he is the same old SBW at heart. Disgraceful. Joins the ranks of Umaga and Mealamu as players who cross the line and try and get away with dirty and downright dangerous play.

Gwlad wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Disgrace that is SBW? Get a grip.

No thanks, its him that needs to get a grip, straightened his arm and dropped his shoulder - even clenched his fist- into another players head, you can pretend you're a new man but he just showed he is the same old SBW at heart. Disgraceful. Joins the ranks of Umaga and Mealamu as players who cross the line and try and get away with dirty and downright dangerous play.

I thought it was a pretty disgraceful challenge. There was no mitigation for me. Watson was not slipping. And I agree with Gwlad, he did clench his fist. Couple that with there being no attempt to wrap and it doesn't look good.

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:

Gatland, Roundtree and Farrell simply don't understand what it is about.

Thats a bit of bold statement form someone whos not even close to getting Rowntree's name right. Of the three hes at least been a Lions tourist (where Mcheechan was a coach) and should know a lot better than any of us what its about.

To be fair Geech toured twice as a player '74 and '77 playing in all 8 tests

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.

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

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

A red card in Test 2 and a very strange refereeing call from Poite to save the Lions in Test 3 aside. I think you're right, the ABs are in a transitional period.

He won a series in AUS and drew one in NZ so he'll go down as a very good lions coach. Played 6 games, won 3, lost 2, drew 1. In terms of the lions you can't ask for much more.  He did have a favourable hand in terms of lady luck... playing probably the poorest AUS team in memory and the fortune of the 2nd test in NZ but still... a drawn series in NZ shouldn't be looked up as a failure and will in time be seen even as an achievement given the circumstances.

To go down however as a legend you have to win a series against the big 2 giants... NZ or SA. He got close but didn't quite make it.
Lets be honest we were very lucky in this series. We were shamed a bit upfront but somehow stayed away from too many cards. SBW aside would we have won last week? If we managed to sneak a win today it probably wouldn't have done the series justice.... we were 2nd best for almost all 3 games.... what leading for only 3 mins of the 240.

Playing away from home is tough, playing in NZ is even tougher so to get a draw should be applauded... but perhaps won't warrant an invitation from the Queen.

ebop 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

A red card in Test 2 and a very strange refereeing call from Poite to save the Lions in Test 3 aside. I think you're right, the ABs are in a transitional period.

why was it a poor call by Poite? The law is quite clear. If it was unintentional and it didn't disfavour NZ then its accidental offside and a scrum. Owens can hardly be said to have held it. It was in his hands for less than a second before he pulled them away. NZ picked up the ball and had possession. Tha'ts not favourable. That's the law.

Actually if it's accidental and doesn't favour the Lions it's play on so he judged it did but was accidental.

Scottrf wrote:Actually if it's accidental and doesn't favour the Lions it's play on so he judged it did but was accidental.

you're right


a)
When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.
(b)
When a player hands the ball to a team-mate in front of the first player, the receiver is offside. Unless the receiver is considered to be intentionally offside (in which case a penalty kick is awarded), the receiver is accidentally offside and a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

...............

In what parallel universe could you consider Owens intentionally offset?

Cannot avoid. He actively caught it. Wrong decision for me.