Gatland to lead the Lions in 2021.......again!

First topic message reminder :

Gatland to lead the Lions to SA in 2021

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48224634?filter=none


I guess this rules him out of the England job post RWC, guess he is waiting for the All Blacks, still.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Really? I think he's a way below par selector. England would pose him a similar challenge to the lions. It's not his strength.

His way below par selections seem to have worked pretty well so far, perhaps you need to remove head from somewhere

No 7&1/2 wrote:Really? I think he's a way below par selector. England would pose him a similar challenge to the lions. It's not his strength.

The Lions fantasy team is the polar opposite of any national Test team.

Gatland is an exceptional Lions selector as proven by his results. He knows he cannot pick a scratch team of individuals whatever their hype, because he hasn't the time to coach them into a team. With the time available in a National job and his rhino skin toughness he might have been able to stand up to the journos baying for blood, but why would he put himself through that?
Clive Woodward eventually understood that he had to resist the media pressure to select the latest flavour of the month and suffer the subsequent disruption, but it still took him seven years to make England world-beaters.

LondonTiger wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Gatland was asked who he would pick as captain right now, not in 2 years time yet ya’ll fall for it and then come on here to have a cry.

Complete misrepresentation of what happened. Only people who mentioned it so far:

Pot Hale suggests Gats names Farrell and AWJ as captains.
I query what he actually said.
Risca provides the direct quote.
I thank Risca
Goose points out why what Gats said makes sense and extrapolates two years.

7.5 cries over Gatland saying we would select AWJ right now.
Well Past It cries over it too.

Personal opinion but there really was no need to create some nationalistic outrage.

There you go, seeing as you left out some vital information.

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Really? I think he's a way below par selector. England would pose him a similar challenge to the lions. It's not his strength.

The Lions fantasy team is the polar opposite of any national Test team.

Gatland is an exceptional Lions selector as proven by his results. He knows he cannot pick a scratch team of individuals whatever their hype, because he hasn't the time to coach them into a team. With the time available in a National job and his rhino skin toughness he might have been able to stand up to the journos baying for blood, but why would he put himself through that?
Clive Woodward eventually understood that he had to resist the media pressure to select the latest flavour of the month and suffer the subsequent disruption, but it still took him seven years to make England world-beaters.

Right you are, and not forgetting his record with other teams, not just the Lions. Talk about being way out of touch with reality.

Chin up mikey.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Chin up mikey.

Hit reality.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Really? I think he's a way below par selector. England would pose him a similar challenge to the lions. It's not his strength.

Seeing as nobody has directly asked you about this, please explain. His job was to win a series and take control of a series where they probably couldn’t really win and he had a win and a draw. How is that below par selecting? Very interesting to know what you're on about there.

RiscaGame wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Really? I think he's a way below par selector. England would pose him a similar challenge to the lions. It's not his strength.

Seeing as nobody has directly asked you about this, please explain. His job was to win a series and take control of a series where they probably couldn’t really win and he had a win and a draw. How is that below par selecting? Very interesting to know what you're on about there.

If 15 England players aren’t in the starting lineup then that’s way below par selecting .

RiscaGame wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Really? I think he's a way below par selector. England would pose him a similar challenge to the lions. It's not his strength.

Seeing as nobody has directly asked you about this, please explain. His job was to win a series and take control of a series where they probably couldn’t really win and he had a win and a draw. How is that below par selecting? Very interesting to know what you're on about there.

Of all the things you could possibly slate Gatland for, his selection policy cannot be one, he has been bang on both for Wales and the Lions.

I was explaining my reasoning with lt. No don't think he's been bang on with selection. He's currently gone on 2 tours picking guys injured or coming back from injury with no need. Saying things like we won against Australia shows we had selection correct is a little black and white for me. If Beale had kicked that last penalty which we had no control over at all suddenly you'd have agreed with me? I go into this next tour now in the hope gatland and the coaches look to form first and foremost rather than reputation but I'm not holding my breath as it's not happened before.

The win lose selection correct debate is encapsulated in dropping BOD. 3rd game the pack with Corbisiero and SOB making huge impacts changes the pattern of the tour. Results in a lot of people pointing to BOD being dropped and people saying see it was the right choice. No!
We should have buried that aus team.

If Halfpenny hadn’t have missed a kick he normally nails, we would’ve won 3-0. You could over analyse any moment like that.

Yes. That's why we should try to look at the whole picture. Win meaning everything was done correctly lost meaning it all went wrong is not the way to view things.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was explaining my reasoning with lt. No don't think he's been bang on with selection. He's currently gone on 2 tours picking guys injured or coming back from injury with no need. Saying things like we won against Australia shows we had selection correct is a little black and white for me. If Beale had kicked that last penalty which we had no control over at all suddenly you'd have agreed with me? I go into this next tour now in the hope gatland and the coaches look to form first and foremost rather than reputation but I'm not holding my breath as it's not happened before.

Every coach makes what are perceived as errors. More often than not these are actually differences of opinion. Some are blatant errors as evidenced by hooking a guy off after 25 minutes.

I do not see naming a party 6 weeks before the first game that contains injured players as an error. There is plenty of time to recover, and they will have to pass a fitness test before traveling.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The win lose selection correct debate is encapsulated in dropping BOD. 3rd game the pack with Corbisiero and SOB making huge impacts changes the pattern of the tour. Results in a lot of people pointing to BOD being dropped and people saying see it was the right choice. No!
We should have buried that aus team.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. BOD was not playing well enough and it was correct, imo, to drop him.(The smirks Gats gave when he announced it are however one of the reasons I would not want him as England coach despite feeling he would do a good job). And yes we should have beaten what was a poor Aussie team 3-0. 

Lions coaches though have a trickier job than National ones, but Gatland has done both well. Since he left Ireland he has been successful at Wasps, Wales and Lions. With the Lions in NZ he has managed to get all 3 punching above their weight. You do not do that by being bad at selection.

He has been an outstanding coach, just not to my taste.

He was still better in the 1st and 2nd tests than JD. I don't think the lions bar the 3rd test in Aus have come close to punching their weight.
The point on selecting squad 6 weeks ahead and letting then prove their fitness: in my view for the lions is completely unnecessary. If he were picking a national squad where the drop in quality is more noticable just about fair enough when you're picking from Britain and Ireland for me it just shows inflexibility.
Coaches develop though so maybe this time will be different.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He was still better in the 1st and 2nd tests than JD. 

Actually I disagree. To be honest in a team game it is always a matter of opinion. Biggest mistake on that tour (imo again) was keeping Mako on for the full 80 minutes in T2 when he was clearly knackered after 50 minutes.

After a disappointing first test in NZ I feel that the Lions seriously over achieved. It is easy to blame it on issues with NZ, but getting the draw in that series was quite possibly the second best Lions performance in my lifetime. 1974 beats it, but NZ in 71 were poor, SA in 97 shot themselves in teh foot and victories in Aus should be the norm.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The win lose selection correct debate is encapsulated in dropping BOD. 3rd game the pack with Corbisiero and SOB making huge impacts changes the pattern of the tour. Results in a lot of people pointing to BOD being dropped and people saying see it was the right choice. No!
We should have buried that aus team.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. BOD was not playing well enough and it was correct, imo, to drop him.(The smirks Gats gave when he announced it are however one of the reasons I would not want him as England coach despite feeling he would do a good job). And yes we should have beaten what was a poor Aussie team 3-0. 

Lions coaches though have a trickier job than National ones, but Gatland has done both well. Since he left Ireland he has been successful at Wasps, Wales and Lions. With the Lions in NZ he has managed to get all 3 punching above their weight. You do not do that by being bad at selection.

He has been an outstanding coach, just not to my taste.

BOD had been playing around the same as Davies IMO. People like to rewrite history based on the tour outcome however while Davis did do well in test three he was no better than BOD in 1 and 2 and was responsible for at least one soft try.

The reality is either player would have done fine as the whole team performed well in test 3. The series win certainly didn't pivot on the change at 13.

The only reason I though BOD should not have been dropped was he was the obvious choice as captain after Warburton got injured. However, Gatland predictably selected AWJ instead who only had a couple of caps as captain about 5 years previously. Obviously it didn't really matter in the end as AWJ proved he is a great leader.

I think we are agreed that calls like that do come down to opinion. I think we also agree that the thumping win was not due to a change in the centres, but the changes in the pack and the fire they came out with.

The scoreline is the only fact we ever have. Anything else is always opinion and conjecture.

That's true.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Really? I think he's a way below par selector. England would pose him a similar challenge to the lions. It's not his strength.

Surprised with this comment, when he has not lost a single Lions tour, has won numerous 6N's, with a few grand slams and triple crowns, got Wales to a world cup semi final, and to the quarters last time around with an injury ravaged squad, all this without depth to chose from that other nations have.

Also, lets not mention what he won at club level with Wasps.

Just to let you know, Gatland will have nothing to do with our country by the time he is in charge of the Lions.

I've gone through the reasons LD and did so at the time. Although you have an obsession with Wales and indeed you've recently pointed out on the other lions thread you are openly biased towards Wales and the Welsh rather than the lions don't think everyone is the same.
Selection for Wales is much less of an issue than with the lions and masks it for me. But that is a separate point really.

Just going by what hes said himself but fine by me.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He was still better in the 1st and 2nd tests than JD. I don't think the lions bar the 3rd test in Aus have come close to punching their weight.
The point on selecting  squad 6 weeks ahead and letting then prove their fitness: in my view for the lions is completely unnecessary.  If he were picking a national squad where the drop in quality is more noticable just about fair enough when you're picking from Britain and Ireland for me it just shows inflexibility.
Coaches develop though so maybe this time will be different.

In fairness JD was playing out of position at 12. He rarely plays at 12 at test level.  Difficult to compare the performances of two 13s with one of them moved to a different position, albeit with 12 not being a million miles away from 13.

And going back to the conversations on the match at the time you can see it was felt that BOD was playing 12. In reality it was probably a bit of a mix and match. I think there is at least some consensus that the 3rd test s result doesn't simply prove the selection correct anyhow?

Gatland is due to take over from August 2020 anyway. Not too sure what hos role will be from then until the 6 nations seems to be a suggestion it will be to work around the logistics of the tour? There were a few grumbles about the level of opposition leading to the tests and then the final game where additional players had to be added. Not sure how much influence he can enact there but seems an obvious focus.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Gatland is due to take over from August 2020 anyway. Not too sure what hos role will be from then until the 6 nations seems to be a suggestion it will be to work around the logistics of the tour? There were a few grumbles about the level of opposition leading to the tests and then the final game where additional players had to be added. Not sure how much influence he can enact there but seems an obvious focus.

I've read that the original Lions deal with SANZAR has now expired so the Lions are able to negotiate directly with each of the 3 nations. What I read suggested that this will make it easier to agree better scheduling, etc.

The next tour will be hamstrung from the start. Starts later and one week shorter.

Maybe it's after the next one that the negotiations can be done unilaterally. The article mentioned a return to the tour manager role too and some other things that they felt would improve the spirit/ethos of the Lions.

Even if it's just a few more top players appearing in the warm ups it would help.

The Oracle wrote:Maybe it's after the next one that the negotiations can be done unilaterally.  The article mentioned a return to the tour manager role too and some other things that they felt would improve the spirit/ethos of the Lions.

I thought they were getting rid of the tour manager (usually an old fart, last time John Spencer a player from the 70s) and changing it to a younger type of guy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was explaining my reasoning with lt. No don't think he's been bang on with selection. He's currently gone on 2 tours picking guys injured or coming back from injury with no need. Saying things like we won against Australia shows we had selection correct is a little black and white for me. If Beale had kicked that last penalty which we had no control over at all suddenly you'd have agreed with me? I go into this next tour now in the hope gatland and the coaches look to form first and foremost rather than reputation but I'm not holding my breath as it's not happened before.

Omg how are you still repeating this futile and irrelevant argument

Its only irrelevant if you don't understand the discussion mikey.

Tour manager has been disbanded according to the reports.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its only irrelevant if you don't understand the discussion mikey.

Your manager has been disbanded according to the reports.

Lions won that test and that tour. Discussion over really. Not sure why you’re so obsessed after all these years.

No idea what your talking about.

I guessed your last sentence!

Aus was a boring tour though to be fair.
NZ was better but we should have won, if only we had played a different brand of rugby!

Lets hope SA 2021 is memorable for the rugby, but with Gats at the helm I have my doubts.

Fake fans just need to stay away from the Lions, you bring nothing of value. Us real rugby people will go out and enjoy it.

Without fake fans buying tickets and drinking watered down beer in Stadiums our Unions would be broke!

plus the pink cowboy hat and 1/2 & 1/2 scarf industry would be done for!

Yeah true I guess. Speaking of 1/2 and 1/2, what about the 7&1/2? Probably never watched a live game...

Not of the lions, no.

mikey_dragon wrote:Fake fans just need to stay away from the Lions, you bring nothing of value. Us real rugby people will go out and enjoy it.

Don't agree with you - fake fan, is Trump your middle name?

Oh looks like we have another fake fan. Please stop crying.

More Trumpisms MD, you want Gatland to be your dad, we want him him to be fair and reasonable.

People are allowed opinions that differ to yours about which team is best, which player is best and which manager is the best to lead the Lions. Not everybody is a sycophantic as you.

If you can afford the time off and the cost of going out to SA for the tour, lucky you. Most of us cannot afford it or even if we could have other family commitments that preclude us from going. It does not make us "fake fans", opinions like yours do make you a Trump sound alike.

TightHEAD wrote:Aus was a boring tour though to be fair.
NZ was better but we should have won, if only we had played a different brand of rugby!

Lets hope SA 2021 is memorable for the rugby, but with Gats at the helm I have my doubts.

Yes I see, you'd like a Lions coach who loses every game but plays more exciting, but losing, rugby. Gotcha.

Pie wrote:Yes I see, you'd like a Lions coach who loses every game but plays more exciting, but losing, rugby. Gotcha.

Actually, yes, I would take a losing tour with exciting rugby, over a winning one played cautiously.

That's not even a hypothetical, as we have the example of 2009, the tour which finally taught BOD the Lions could be an enjoyable experience. Even allowing for McGeechan's selection fallibility, we played in an ambitious style, with Roberts and O'Driscoll linking in the centres like a dream. I'll take 2009 over 2013 and 2017 for entertainment value, and for burnishing the reputation of the Lions.

Before that tour, there were genuine fears that it was becoming impossible to put together a winning Lions team. Henry had blown it, despite having one of the best ever squads, while Woodward had killed the romance and still failed to deliver. The great victory of 2009 was to restore love for the Lions without actually winning the series.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Pie wrote:Yes I see, you'd like a Lions coach who loses every game but plays more exciting, but losing, rugby. Gotcha.

Actually, yes, I would take a losing tour with exciting rugby, over a winning one played cautiously.

That's not even a hypothetical, as we have the example of 2009, the tour which finally taught BOD the Lions could be an enjoyable experience. Even allowing for McGeechan's selection fallibility, we played in an ambitious style, with Roberts and O'Driscoll linking in the centres like a dream. I'll take 2009 over 2013 and 2017 for entertainment value, and for burnishing the reputation of the Lions.

Before that tour, there were genuine fears that it was becoming impossible to put together a winning Lions team. Henry had blown it, despite having one of the best ever squads, while Woodward had killed the romance and still failed to deliver. The great victory of 2009 was to restore love for the Lions without actually winning the series.

what a load of codswallop

I was there an di can assure you after the second test there was a lot of emotion and tears because O Gara was a numpty and cost us th tour

Honestly the tripe that people spout about winning isn't everything

It really is if you have the vaguest idea about pro sport, clearly you dont

Jesus...what guff.

"Cost 'us' the tour."

Lions needs to be dropped in the sewer damn quick. Just an imperialistic dinosaur designed to allow one group of Natives from these islands to gloat that they are better than the other group.

That's all it is.... a means for the English to pi-ss on the Welsh, the Welsh to pi-ss on the Irish etc etc in a circle.  "Our coach is better than your coach!"  "Your best player isn't even good enough to have been a Lion!"  "The Scots shouldn't be moaning about only having two players in the squad, it's two more than they deserve!"

Brotherly love and unity of purpose my ass.  I dream of the day it's dumped.  Ireland is my only 'us'.  Couldn't give a damn if Lions lose or win... they're only a barbarian side, with less sense of humour than the real barbarians.

Pie wrote:I was there and i can assure you after the second test there was a lot of emotion and tears...

Where did I say anything to deny that?

I usually watch most big Test matches twice, because I'm often drunk/biting my nails/hiding behind the sofa/shouting at the screen/all of the above, during the live broadcast. I coudn't bring myself to watch that 2nd Lions Test again for an age because it hurt so much to lose. That's how much I felt invested in the tour.

I rarely care about style when it comes to England, except when the presence or absence of style is sign of a real tactical shortcoming. I'll take 3-0 wins every day over our main rivals. The individual home nations can get wins on their own over Lions opponents (with the notable exception of NZ) so I don't just want wins, I want some magic too. 2009 had magic that we hadn't seem since the winning tours of the 70s, '89 and '97. Gatland deserves a lot of credit for his conribution in 2009, so that's no knock on him.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Pie wrote:I was there and i can assure you after the second test there was a lot of emotion and tears...

Where did I say anything to deny that?

I usually watch most big Test matches twice, because I'm often drunk/biting my nails/hiding behind the sofa/shouting at the screen/all of the above, during the live broadcast. I coudn't bring myself to watch that 2nd Lions Test again for an age because it hurt so much to lose. That's how much I felt invested in the tour.

I rarely care about style when it comes to England, except when the presence or absence of style is sign of a real tactical shortcoming. I'll take 3-0 wins every day over our main rivals. The individual home nations can get wins on their own over Lions opponents (with the notable exception of NZ) so I don't just want wins, I want some magic too. 2009 had magic that we hadn't seem since the winning tours of the 70s, '89 and '97. Gatland deserves a lot of credit for his conribution in 2009, so that's no knock on him.

Magic doesn't trump good old finger-in-eye enforcing (and bad officiating). It wasn't just Burger, but Matfield and Smith were doling out the pain and it wasn't surprising an obviously concussed O'Gara's judgement was uncharacteristically off.

That second Test shows it's not just the players that are adversely affected by the Lions. The Officials have the pressure that comes with the Lions only playing in a particular country once every twelve years, and there must be added reluctance to show the red card. Garces had the courage of his convictions to send off Williams in Wellington and define that game, whereas Berdos lacked the same conviction in Pretoria and ended up defining it a different way.