Gatland- one kiwi opinion...

by Taylorman Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:29 pm

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/8916219/NZRU-need-to-show-some-love-for-Gatland

I came to the same opinion after this series and am also in the same boat as other kiwis that probably didnt follow his career that closely- I mean Connachct, the wasps are hardly anything we'd care about.

So this post is not meant to stir the pot, though some will. For me its now about where Gatland fits in the NZ game, does he now deserve a higher pecking order on the AB list and just as importantly whether NZ deserves Gatland given its cold shoulder in the past.

The reality is, neither owes the other, both (and now many others outside NZ) have benefitted enormously from that that is NZ rugby but I think that by some magical bonding that exists between the AB's and Kiwi's, time will eventually bring the two together...eventually, especially having seen much more of Gatland these last few weeks than ever before.

by dallym Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:56 pm

If Rennie can win the S15 again, combined with multiple world championships at junior level, then surely he'd be first in line if Shag steps down after 2015? Gatland has built an impressive CV but it's hard to see him getting the ABs job without some super rugby experience. Is he prepared to leave Wales now? Is there a vacancy (could the hurricanes punt hammett?) for him?

by Taylorman Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:29 pm

I would have though Shag would continue through to the Lions in 17, Gats to go to Wcup in 15 and do sxv in 16 and 17 and perhaps take over in 18. Why do the Lions in 17 when its likely a new AB coach will definitely be in by then.

Other option is to aggressively challenge for any of the 5 sxv franchises regardless of when.

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:17 am

Good call Tman, by then, Gatland would have just about earned his stripes to become ABs coach (i say facetiously). I like what the NZRFU did with Shag last time to maintain flow between coaching set ups. Could Gatland be incorporated into the Shag system to facilitate a smooth transition between eras?

by dallym Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:05 am

Do you think Shag will stay for the Lions tour? By 2015 he'd be involved in the AB set up for 12 years. Would he stay longer for another shot at the Lions? And what other coaches will come home looking for S15 work after the RWC? It's gonna be an interesting time!

by Hound of Harrow Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:43 am

Would the NZ rugby public tolerate so called 'Gatlandball'?

Wink

by Sin é Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:50 am

First of all, the journalist who wrote that article isn't a kiwi. He is English, emigrated to NZ 2 years ago. Smile

Secondly, Reason is a blogger on the TheRugbySite which has most of the Welsh team blogging/doing coaching videos on it since the World Cup. Gatty does a coaching video for them on ''placing and securing ball.''

A few things that were not mentioned in Gatland's credentials. For instance, when Gatland first starting coaching Ireland he lost the first 6/7 games on the trot and there was a disastrous world cup campaign in 99 (including being beaten by a very young Munster team on its way to the world cup).

Gatland's Ireland's fortunes improved dramatically when Eddie O'Sullivan was brought in as backs coach (and then Ireland started winning - including the game where Brian O'Driscoll scored a hattrick in Paris).

Woody's (and the senior players) big bone of contention with Gatland was that he resisted change bigtime. Woody had been on the Lions Tour to Australia and saw the emergence of the Defence Coach in coaching. Gatland refused to hire a defence coach and thats why Ireland didn't renew his contract - he just couldn't deal with players making demands of him. Interesting that Gatty then moved to Wasps where he was partnered with one of the best defence coaches around - and thats when his success started coming.

As far as I can recall, Gatland was offered a job with the Hurricanes, but turned it down to go to Wales because the money was so poor.

I'd be shocked if Gatland got near the NZ job unless he works his way up in NZ by becoming an assistant for a Super Rugby team first, then head coach. Seems like he is working the media to get this to happen.

by fa0019 Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:54 am

Gatland will say he plays to his players strengths... that the increased tempo and skills of the SH requires his NH players to play a more conservative way to compete.

I think he would have to adapt a little to become a serious contender and for that he would need SR experience.

Could play the long game though... take Wales to 2015 RWC and leave the position then. Take the Lions to NZ in 2017... then do a quick 2 years in SR before catching the ABs role in 2019.

I think thats the only realistic way he'll achieve it... he won't get it without that SR experience and a successful Lions tour in NZ (even a competitive tour, not necessarily a win) will put him above his peers (of which their are quite a few!).

by Taylorman Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:18 am

Leading a Lions tour to win or lose in NZ wont do anything. He's already had over a decade in NH rugby with about as much success as any coach bar a Wcup win. We get it. He's good with UK rugby.
He's been out of NZ rugby for 7 years now, by 17 itll be over 10. He needs to get a feel for NZ rugby and take an educated guess at Hansens likely exit. Bringing him in with Hansen for the WCup and Lions might be a way of gaining insight into the WCup in England and obviously the Lions here. Only that way can I see him bypassing the sxv requirement.

by fa0019 Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:21 am

Taylorman... that would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons. I think Wales would be furious... get on the blower to Hansen now Wink

(assuming everyone in NZ knows everyone right)???

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:52 am

Bringing him in as an assistant for the lions would be a nice little mind game, I'm sure he'd be tickled by that. Would add a bit of an undercurrent to the series. Surely he couldn't make it for the next RWC though. The ABs need a stubborn curmudgeon as head coach and he fits the bill. Rennie does to. All other S15 coaches don't appear to have that stuff-you hard nosed attitude.

by **rodders** Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:00 am

Well I'd be delighted if he took on the AB job..........

.... and then we'll see how the Kiwi fans feel when he drops Conrad Smith and Ritchie McCaw for Davies and Warburton ..... thumbsup

by **Notch** Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:12 am

rodders wrote:Well I'd be delighted if he took on the AB job..........

.... and then we'll see how the Kiwi fans feel when he drops Conrad Smith and Ritchie McCaw for Davies and Warburton .....

by Sin é Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:17 am

rodders wrote:Well I'd be delighted if he took on the AB job..........

.... and then we'll see how the Kiwi fans feel when he drops Conrad Smith and Ritchie McCaw for Davies and Warburton .....

Don't forget the 14 man lineouts!: drumroll

by SecretFly Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:27 am

Why wouldn't he drop Richie? No time for sentiment at the top. No time for mush with Gats. Warburton is a Natural 7, Richie is just a 6.5 who bluffs the extra .5.

by Sin é Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:37 am

SecretFly wrote:Why wouldn't he drop Richie? No time for sentiment at the top. No time for mush with Gats. Warburton is a Natural 7, Richie is just a 6.5 who bluffs the extra .5.

His son is an 'outstanding first-five at Hamilton Boys, unbeaten this season.'' DC watch out!

That article is hilarious. For instance he says: ''In 2001, Ireland lost the Six Nations Championship on points difference, before Gatland was ousted in a coup in favour of assistant coach Eddie O'Sullivan. "It is important to have the undying loyalty of those around you," he would later wryly observe.''

I wonder will Shaun Edwards continue with undying loyalty after the way Gatland stabbed him in the back.

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:12 am

He certainly has the CV for dropping any AB he wanted. To be fair, ABs don't get dropped, they get surpassed.

by Knowsit17 Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:23 am

Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Why wouldn't he drop Richie? No time for sentiment at the top. No time for mush with Gats. Warburton is a Natural 7, Richie is just a 6.5 who bluffs the extra .5.

His son is an 'outstanding first-five at Hamilton Boys, unbeaten this season.'' DC watch out!

That article is hilarious. For instance he says: ''In 2001, Ireland lost the Six Nations Championship on points difference, before Gatland was ousted in a coup in favour of assistant coach Eddie O'Sullivan. "It is important to have the undying loyalty of those around you," he would later wryly observe.''

I wonder will Shaun Edwards continue with undying loyalty after the way Gatland stabbed him in the back.

You deliberately misconstrue loyalty with sticking to what you know. As far as I'm aware Gats never promised Edwards the position. No, EOS remains the champion connoisseur in the art of backstabbing Whistle

by SecretFly Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:19 am

Knowsit17 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Why wouldn't he drop Richie? No time for sentiment at the top. No time for mush with Gats. Warburton is a Natural 7, Richie is just a 6.5 who bluffs the extra .5.

His son is an 'outstanding first-five at Hamilton Boys, unbeaten this season.'' DC watch out!

That article is hilarious. For instance he says: ''In 2001, Ireland lost the Six Nations Championship on points difference, before Gatland was ousted in a coup in favour of assistant coach Eddie O'Sullivan. "It is important to have the undying loyalty of those around you," he would later wryly observe.''

I wonder will Shaun Edwards continue with undying loyalty after the way Gatland stabbed him in the back.

You deliberately misconstrue loyalty with sticking to what you know. As far as I'm aware Gats never promised Edwards the position. No, EOS remains the champion connoisseur in the art of backstabbing

I think you're misconstruing your own valiant attempt at a passable excuse with a private conviction that Sin is right. Gatland did footshoot his philosophy, as Edwards is much more than 'what Gatland knows'. He's been a central and continuing part of why Gatland got the Lions job in the first place. He's been with Gatland at Wasps (!) and Wales and again present in this year's Wales 6N win (when boss was absent). No - 'loyalty' just wasn't so big a deal this time round for pragmatic Gatland.

by **rodders** Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:51 am

Wasps.

As in a man walks into a pet shop

Man: "how much for a wasp?"

Pet shop owner: "we don't sell wasps"

Man: "Well there's one in the window..."

by Sin é Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 am

Knowsit17 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Why wouldn't he drop Richie? No time for sentiment at the top. No time for mush with Gats. Warburton is a Natural 7, Richie is just a 6.5 who bluffs the extra .5.

His son is an 'outstanding first-five at Hamilton Boys, unbeaten this season.'' DC watch out!

That article is hilarious. For instance he says: ''In 2001, Ireland lost the Six Nations Championship on points difference, before Gatland was ousted in a coup in favour of assistant coach Eddie O'Sullivan. "It is important to have the undying loyalty of those around you," he would later wryly observe.''

I wonder will Shaun Edwards continue with undying loyalty after the way Gatland stabbed him in the back.

You deliberately misconstrue loyalty with sticking to what you know. As far as I'm aware Gats never promised Edwards the position. No, EOS remains the champion connoisseur in the art of backstabbing

I don't think the IRFU promised Gats his position either (and as his assistant, how could EOS promise him it) Whistle

by SecretFly Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:56 am

rodders wrote:Wasps.

As in a man walks into a pet shop

Man: "how much for a wasp?"

Pet shop owner: "we don't sell wasps"

Man: "Well there's one in the window..."

Oops! Thanks for spotting that. Whistle

by SecretFly Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:07 am

rodders wrote:Wasps.

As in a man walks into a pet shop

Man: "how much for a wasp?"

Pet shop owner: "we don't sell wasps"

Man: "Well there's one in the window..."

Pet shop owner: "Well, if you insist - Yeah, £25 each."

Man: "There ya go. Now will you box him for me?"

Pet shop owner: "Them's free-range wasps. It's against the law to box them"

by Knowsit17 Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:56 am

SecretFly wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Why wouldn't he drop Richie? No time for sentiment at the top. No time for mush with Gats. Warburton is a Natural 7, Richie is just a 6.5 who bluffs the extra .5.

His son is an 'outstanding first-five at Hamilton Boys, unbeaten this season.'' DC watch out!

That article is hilarious. For instance he says: ''In 2001, Ireland lost the Six Nations Championship on points difference, before Gatland was ousted in a coup in favour of assistant coach Eddie O'Sullivan. "It is important to have the undying loyalty of those around you," he would later wryly observe.''

I wonder will Shaun Edwards continue with undying loyalty after the way Gatland stabbed him in the back.

You deliberately misconstrue loyalty with sticking to what you know. As far as I'm aware Gats never promised Edwards the position. No, EOS remains the champion connoisseur in the art of backstabbing

I think you're misconstruing your own valiant attempt at a passable excuse with a private conviction that Sin is right. Gatland did footshoot his philosophy, as Edwards is much more than 'what Gatland knows'. He's been a central and continuing part of why Gatland got the Lions job in the first place. He's been with Gatland at Wasps (!) and Wales and again present in this year's Wales 6N win (when boss was absent). No - 'loyalty' just wasn't so big a deal this time round for pragmatic Gatland.

I still fail to see how making a decision not to bring one of your usual assistants on a Lions tour is comparable to going behind your boss's back to badmouth him so you can nab his position. I don't know how you would define it but for me you can't epitomise backstabbing any more than that. At least Gats probably had the courtesy and honour to tell Edwards himself that he wasn't taking him rather than let him find out himself.

by Sin é Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:07 am

It was just EOS though that was bad mouthing him* .... it was the senior players who found him to be very conservative and resisted any change like bringing in a Backs Coach who was the real reason why BOD scored 3 tries for the win in Paris (yet Gatland claims all the credit). The other bugbear they had was they wanted him to hire a Defence Coach and when he wouldn't do that, they decided his contract should not be renewed. Keith Wood also had the ear of the IRFU (and still does as he was one of the panel to interview Joe Schmidt for the Ireland job).

*bad mouthing him would be saying things that were not true anyway.

The way Gatland has his pr machine going in New Zealand with the 'come and get me's', I'd be surprised if the WRU won't show him the door fairly soon. If Edwards gets the Welsh job, I wonder will Gatland be spinning that Edwards stabbed him in the back.

by Sin é Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:10 am

Knowsit17 wrote:
I still fail to see how making a decision not to bring one of your usual assistants on a Lions tour is comparable to going behind your boss's back to badmouth him so you can nab his position. I don't know how you would define it but for me you can't epitomise backstabbing any more than that. At least Gats probably had the courtesy and honour to tell Edwards himself that he wasn't taking him rather than let him find out himself.

I'm sure the IRFU told Gatland in private that they were not renewing his contract Wink

by SecretFly Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:00 am

Knowsit17 wrote:

I still fail to see how making a decision not to bring one of your usual assistants on a Lions tour is comparable to going behind your boss's back to badmouth him so you can nab his position. I don't know how you would define it but for me you can't epitomise backstabbing any more than that. At least Gats probably had the courtesy and honour to tell Edwards himself that he wasn't taking him rather than let him find out himself.

We'll do the memories of why Gatland got ....em, dropped, Knowsit, as some of us lived through the period more alive to the truth of then rather than the myths of now.
Many of us then were of the opinion that yep, the two coaches didn't get along but that O'Sullivan's influence over the backs was the positive aspect of Ireland that was being squandered to Gatland's stubborn war-of-wills with his backs coach. Ireland we felt were suffering under the strain and the more creative coach was the one we felt was the right choice for the future. It was a personal war between two men who were never going to get along and it needed a solution. It didn't require badmouthing, it was all over the media - the pros and cons of two coaches who couldn't co-exist.

Now I still fail to see where the courtesy and honour of Gatland telling Edwards 'himself' is going to make Edwards feel he wasn't dropped as a lesser coach to the ones Gatland eventually chose to take. Afterall, the objective was to win the Lions series and Edwards had assisted Gatland into the driver's seat of that adventure. If Gatland had proved his credentials then it was easy to see that his long term assistant had also proved his merit.

by aucklandlaurie Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:41 pm

Hound of Harrow wrote:Would the NZ rugby public tolerate so called 'Gatlandball'?

Dont know what "gatlandball" is. but I do know what that Waikato style rugby is that Gatland (and John Mitchel) has for nearly a decade been trying to coach in the Northern Hemisphere.

by Taylorman Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:46 pm

And Gatland won the ITM here with Waikato between NH jaunts so he's not totally unfamiliar with the NZ style and how to win here and one of his biggest challenges ironically will be about learning how to maintain consistent winning form rather than having to continuously make pull the rabbit out of the hat selections and see what happens as he did on the Lions tour. This is why he needs to get his pulse back on NZ rugby.

by nganboy Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:34 pm

When fans have chosen to dislike a player/coach/country then it very unlikely that that opinion will be changed by mere things like facts. So if some people choose not to like Gatland then no amount of success he gains is likely to change that - they will simply find another reason why that success happened. Conversely if the team loses all the blame is heaped on him.

EBOP said "To be fair, ABs don't get dropped, they get surpassed.." of course that's not 100% true. For example Shelford was dropped and replaced by Brooke. Later Brooke surpassed him but at that first moment I'm not sure that Shelford had been surpassed.

by Scarpia Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:18 am

Sin é wrote:

I wonder will Shaun Edwards continue with undying loyalty after the way Gatland stabbed him in the back.

And we can only imagine your accusations of bias if he had taken him. A real no win situation.

by Brendan Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:18 am

Lets remeber that under Gats Ireland won nothing while under EOS a triple crown lost its value we won it so much.

I dont think NZ would tolorate the losing streaks Wales has endured under Gats.

Also as has been shown Gats and Edwards is a team and i doubt the NZRU would take a non NZ as assistant.

Is not the chief's coach the number one contender for the job. He has now taken a team that is not amasing and turned them into the top team. Surely that is viewed well in NZ and will be rewarded.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:02 am

Brendan wrote:..Also as has been shown Gats and Edwards is a team and i doubt the NZRU would take a non NZ as assistant...

I did wonder whether Gatland decided to go with Farrell for the Lions to distance himself from the idea he is over-dependent on Edwards.

That doesn't make him a bad man. You always want to be open to new ideas as a coach so he should be applauded for wanting to work with different people. However, Farrell probably isn't different enough to Edwards to put those old impressions to bed for good. While he's still relatively new to coaching, he's a former League great, respected for his inspirational personal authority, running the defence. Just like Edwards.

by **rodders** Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:38 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
Brendan wrote:..Also as has been shown Gats and Edwards is a team and i doubt the NZRU would take a non NZ as assistant...

I did wonder whether Gatland decided to go with Farrell for the Lions to distance himself from the idea he is over-dependent on Edwards.

I thought the same. Edwards was pretty upset at the snub, particularly so as he and Farrell aren't the best of buddies from their Wigan days .

Farrells credentials as a coach are pretty flaky compared to Edwards, whos been along with Larder and Ford one of the real pioneers in Rugby Union defensive systems.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:45 am

I think in picking Farrell Gatland may also have wanted to avoid having the entire Welsh coaching staff in charge.

My view at the time was that Schmidt should have been backs coach (not Howley) and Edwards (who is English anyway) should have been defence coach. Still, it all worked out ok in the end.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:56 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Hound of Harrow wrote:Would the NZ rugby public tolerate so called 'Gatlandball'?

Dont know what "gatlandball" is. but I do know what that Waikato style rugby is that Gatland (and John Mitchel) has for nearly a decade been trying to coach in the Northern Hemisphere.

Can you or another fan explain to me what that style is? I do question whether Gatland would be a good coach for NZ. He has a rather one dimensional view of the game in my opinion, which of course has worked very well in the NH. Not so much in the SH where they seem to find that sort of game a lot easier to deal with.

NZ would be known obviously for their very skilful players from 1 through to 15. Would the game plan Gatland employs suit these players?

by **rodders** Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:08 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think in picking Farrell Gatland may also have wanted to avoid having the entire Welsh coaching staff in charge.

Wouldn't someone like Les Kiss have made more sense then?

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:15 am

I think Joe Schmidt as backs coach would have made the most sense - although I think Gatland wants the NZ gig in 4 years time and so excluding Schmidt from the Lions coaches this time round probably makes his appointment less likely (unlikely that Howley, Farrell or Rowntree will be Lions head coach material by then).

Still - Howley's backline came good when it mattered in the 3rd Test. Still not convinced by him though.

by **rodders** Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:25 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think Joe Schmidt as backs coach would have made the most sense - although I think Gatland wants the NZ gig in 4 years time and so excluding Schmidt from the Lions coaches this time round probably makes his appointment less likely (unlikely that Howley, Farrell or Rowntree will be Lions head coach material by then).

Still - Howley's backline came good when it mattered in the 3rd Test. Still not convinced by him though.

Howleys backline only has two moves -

a) Ball off the lineout from Phillips to Roberts with North the decoy

b) Ball off the lineout Phillips to North with Roberts the decoy

The problem the Lions had in the previous tests was that both require Roberts to function effectively.

by Hound of Harrow Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:02 am

I did say 'so called'. The way Gatland gets Wales to play is to keep the ball in play (they rarely kick to touch) and then pressure the opposition. His teams are usually very fit to enable them to keep that pressure on.

But while he was at Wasps we were a much more potent attacking team imo, and absolutely lethal with turnover ball.

On another point I don't get this 'Gatland dropped Edwards' stuff. He didn't drop anyone; he selected coaches for a totally different team.

by Taylorman Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:38 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Hound of Harrow wrote:Would the NZ rugby public tolerate so called 'Gatlandball'?

Dont know what "gatlandball" is. but I do know what that Waikato style rugby is that Gatland (and John Mitchel) has for nearly a decade been trying to coach in the Northern Hemisphere.

Can you or another fan explain to me what that style is? I do question whether Gatland would be a good coach for NZ. He has a rather one dimensional view of the game in my opinion, which of course has worked very well in the NH. Not so much in the SH where they seem to find that sort of game a lot easier to deal with.

NZ would be known obviously for their very skilful players from 1 through to 15. Would the game plan Gatland employs suit these players?

Good point Rory...wonder if its horses for courses in that if Gatland were picked those selecting him will have grilled him about the way NZers like to see their side play. He'd have to prove he has innovative ideas and the thought of going back to the Mitchell type days is something they'll avoid like the plague.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:19 pm

Taylorman wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Hound of Harrow wrote:Would the NZ rugby public tolerate so called 'Gatlandball'?

Dont know what "gatlandball" is. but I do know what that Waikato style rugby is that Gatland (and John Mitchel) has for nearly a decade been trying to coach in the Northern Hemisphere.

Can you or another fan explain to me what that style is? I do question whether Gatland would be a good coach for NZ. He has a rather one dimensional view of the game in my opinion, which of course has worked very well in the NH. Not so much in the SH where they seem to find that sort of game a lot easier to deal with.

NZ would be known obviously for their very skilful players from 1 through to 15. Would the game plan Gatland employs suit these players?

Good point Rory...wonder if its horses for courses in that if Gatland were picked those selecting him will have grilled him about the way NZers like to see their side play. He'd have to prove he has innovative ideas and the thought of going back to the Mitchell type days is something they'll avoid like the plague.

This is the thing.. Gatland seems to be the type of coach who would ignore this and stick to his own way of playing. To an extent this is what makes him such a good coach for Wales (and he did win the Lions tour sticking by his own decisions). He has the self-belief that many would call stubbornness, but would that be what NZ need? Or would he need a more open mind if he were to coach such a high calibre team?

I just think if Gatland was the coach, would the likes of Israel Dagg be his choice for the fullback position? Obviously Dagg is the latest in the typical NZ mould of attacking 15s.. however Gatland likes the more defensively solid options.

by aucklandlaurie Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:09 am

rodders wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:I think in picking Farrell Gatland may also have wanted to avoid having the entire Welsh coaching staff in charge.

Wouldn't someone like Les Kiss have made more sense then?

Rodders you cant put Les Kiss in the same sentance as Edwards or Farrell, especially if you are talking defence.

by aucklandlaurie Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:43 am

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Hound of Harrow wrote:Would the NZ rugby public tolerate so called 'Gatlandball'?

Dont know what "gatlandball" is. but I do know what that Waikato style rugby is that Gatland (and John Mitchel) has for nearly a decade been trying to coach in the Northern Hemisphere.

Can you or another fan explain to me what that style is? I do question whether Gatland would be a good coach for NZ. He has a rather one dimensional view of the game in my opinion, which of course has worked very well in the NH. Not so much in the SH where they seem to find that sort of game a lot easier to deal with.

NZ would be known obviously for their very skilful players from 1 through to 15. Would the game plan Gatland employs suit these players?

Rory outside of the four main centres in New Zealand (Auckland, Christchurch,Wellington and Dunedin) waikato has always been the most successful provincial rugby area. They have always had a style that their forwards worked harder than the opposition,and the level of hard work was never negotiable, sure it can be a slog at times but it has always been a style that fed competent five eigths that give big hard running centres options (from Arthur Stone in the 80s to the likes of Richard kahui ) contrary to what you may envisage Warren Gatland and John Mitchel are bring a lot to the coaching table, sure they may at times get bad Press, but its not the media that they are playing, Gatland is very innovative in his forwards coaching methods whereas Mithell is I would say one of the best analysts of rugby in the World today. Maybe you are confusing hard work with being one dimensional as they sometimes mean the same thing in some conditions but its always a safe bet that hard working forwards often play in teams that seem to have more luck in the back ends of each half.

Another trait of these Mooloo (Waikato) men is that no player is any way superior to any of his team mates, and I wouldnt discount the possibility that this ethic is something that Welsh adopt, whereas some other Nh countries may find it too foreign to their ingrained attitudes

In any team, player skills from 1 to 15 is a prerequisite, If they havent got high skill levels they shouldnt be anywhere a team at this level, whether it be in New Zealand or New Mexico.

by Guest Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:56 am

I dont know what gatlandball is, is it supposed to be derogatory? Was England cica 2002-03 gatlandball?

Didn't Gatland bring in some fandangled backline style when he coached Waikato in the NPC? Rush defence or flat back line or something. Don't think it was used much in NZ at the time, is that correct?

by **rodders** Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:05 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
rodders wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:I think in picking Farrell Gatland may also have wanted to avoid having the entire Welsh coaching staff in charge.

Wouldn't someone like Les Kiss have made more sense then?

Rodders you cant put Les Kiss in the same sentance as Edwards or Farrell, especially if you are talking defence.

I'd have thought Farrell is the odd one out given that he is reletatively unproven as at RU defence coach. In fact Saracens defence has been down to Paul Gustard, Farrell has pretty much zero credentials.

by **rodders** Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:13 am

ebop wrote:I dont know what gatlandball is, is it supposed to be derogatory? Was England cica 2002-03 gatlandball?

No England in 2002-3 was about forward dominance.

I think the Gatlandball phrase is a reference to Gatlands preference for huge backs like Roberts, Phillips, North etc. and the insistance of bludgening the opposition down the blindside until it pretty much runs out of numbers and then move the attack open and repeat ad finitem.

It can be very predictable at times, but with the right personel very effective and hard to stop.

Gatland is a much more tactictally astute coach than he is often credited for but his stubborness sometimes can sometimes mean he refuses to change tactics when plan a is faltering.

by Taylorman Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:22 am

big call laurie... theres enough to suggest gatland will play the tight ar@#$se game.

But how long will he last?

by Rory_Gallagher Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:55 am

I'm not talking about forward play though, and of course I am not confusing hard work in the forwards with one dimensional back play. You can win games through dominance up front with the pack (which is what every team will want to achieve, but isn't always possible) and then release the back line. However what I see is Gatland preferring the power game in the back line, selecting players known for their direct running rather than their silky skills and clever running game. His backs are even bigger than the back row. Even at 9 he prefers an extra flanker to a halfback who can provide quick service to spark an attack.

With Phillips, Roberts, Davies, North and Cuthbert he play this sort of game, and he is dominating NH rugby. At 10 and 15 he seems to prefer the solid options who can win him the territorial battle. However, does this type of game suit the players available to the All Blacks? I don't think so. Cruden and Dagg for a start are certainly not the type of 10/15 that Gatland prefers. Do NZ even have the players to succeed with this game plan? It certainly isn't playing to their strengths.

I think there is a substantial difference between the support play and offloading skills of the NZ starting 15 to the teams in the NH, never mind New Mexico.. that is one of the things that sets them apart and makes the rugby much more enjoyable to watch anyway. They may not have the biggest players, but there is no substitute for their skill levels and running ability.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:59 am

To add to that, the fact that NZ do not have the biggest players in the world suggests that if they are sucked into the power game, they won't be half as effective. The likes of Robbie Fruean would need to be looked at to provide big running options in midfield. The dynamics of the NZ back line would be totally different surely.

The same thing goes for the likes of Australia and France. They just aren't suited to this sort of rugby.

by Sponsored content