Gatland - LIONS LEGEND

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.

I'm not surprised at all, Gats is being true to form.

Its exactly how I predicted it going down the moment Gatland was announced as coach

In all fairness despite all the criticism he has managed the tour reasonably well. The geography 6 was a gaffe but the media are really making the most out of it. There have been plenty of positives too.

The team selections arent bad in my opinion although playing Farrell at centre smacks a little of throwing a hail mary at this stage as he didnt reallly give Sexton and Farrell much game time together in the warm up games especially since T'eo has been very good. Is Farrell undropable?

At least there is no place for people like Alistair Campbell, and the farce that surrounded the last tour to New Zealand.

I do think there is a risk of being over critical to Gats.

After all tours to NZ do seem to be a bit of a graveyard for Lions:

2005 - SCW makes a right royal hash of it.
1993 - Midweek team go native
1983 - Hammered from pilalr to post with a skipper not good enough to be the 4th choice replacement.
1977 - Reluctant skipper, dismal tests, unhappy party.



My main issue is that Gatland either did not have a plan as to how they could win the series, or had one and ripped it up in the face of public pressure. However he has not been helped by either the paucity of options in some positions, or the poor form of good players on the tour.

Thing is no matter who the coaches were, no matter who the players were this was always likely to be a series we lost 3-0. Right now it is only 1-0 - so hey anything can happen.

I think he has lost the plot

No9 wrote:As it stands, game wise its W-4;L-3:D-1. For a New Zealand Tour that's not a bad return so far. The next 2 games will decide on whether this tour was a success or not.

Have the Lions ever lost more games than they've won on tour?

Its only 12;10am here, what goes on tour stays on tour.

Don't tell my mum I'm still up. 

Cyril wrote:

No9 wrote:As it stands, game wise its W-4;L-3:D-1. For a New Zealand Tour that's not a bad return so far. The next 2 games will decide on whether this tour was a success or not.

Have the Lions ever lost more games than they've won on tour?

Id say they would have in 05 if they faced the super rugby sides.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

No9 wrote:As it stands, game wise its W-4;L-3:D-1. For a New Zealand Tour that's not a bad return so far. The next 2 games will decide on whether this tour was a success or not.

Have the Lions ever lost more games than they've won on tour?

Id say they would have in 05 if they faced the super rugby sides.

This lot have faced weakened SR sides. Some of them have been like 2nd strings.

Doesn't answer my question though

So you dont think its suprising he dropped Halfpenny?

Cyril wrote:

No9 wrote:As it stands, game wise its W-4;L-3:D-1. For a New Zealand Tour that's not a bad return so far. The next 2 games will decide on whether this tour was a success or not.

Have the Lions ever lost more games than they've won on tour?

No. 1924 it was even but we lost the test 3-0.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

No9 wrote:As it stands, game wise its W-4;L-3:D-1. For a New Zealand Tour that's not a bad return so far. The next 2 games will decide on whether this tour was a success or not.

Have the Lions ever lost more games than they've won on tour?

Id say they would have in 05 if they faced the super rugby sides.

This lot have faced weakened SR sides. Some of them have been like 2nd strings.

Doesn't answer my question though

At least they are super rugby sides this time. They were NPC sides last time. Like the English Championship!

Griff wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

No9 wrote:As it stands, game wise its W-4;L-3:D-1. For a New Zealand Tour that's not a bad return so far. The next 2 games will decide on whether this tour was a success or not.

Have the Lions ever lost more games than they've won on tour?

Id say they would have in 05 if they faced the super rugby sides.

This lot have faced weakened SR sides. Some of them have been like 2nd strings.

Doesn't answer my question though

At least they are super rugby sides this time.  They were NPC sides last time.  Like the English Championship!

Yeah, but that was all set up to improve Shane's try-scoring ratio

Give it another two games Cyril we'll find out.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

No9 wrote:As it stands, game wise its W-4;L-3:D-1. For a New Zealand Tour that's not a bad return so far. The next 2 games will decide on whether this tour was a success or not.

Have the Lions ever lost more games than they've won on tour?

Id say they would have in 05 if they faced the super rugby sides.

This lot have faced weakened SR sides. Some of them have been like 2nd strings.

Doesn't answer my question though

The Crusaders had close to a full strength side didnt they? Given that no New Zealand team has lost a game to any side out of NZ and I don't think the Crusaders have lost a game at all, that's not too bad really.

I reckon people are exaggerating a lot about how bad this tour has been.

I really enjoyed the first test so in that sense yes its over egged that it's a bad tour. Yes we were second best but for a long time we were in it and main problem in the end was switching off after a whistle or a pen. 100 per cent concentration needs to have been hammered into the players.

No9 wrote:
And as for your opening line (well 2nd sentence)... "Gatland is not a man manager", I have never heard so much drivel.

Really? Maybe you should hear Stephen Ferris' account of getting injured on the 09 tour. He had little interaction with Gatland prior to being injured and when he was injured and sitting in the treatment room Gatland walked in, tapped him on the leg and said 'you'll learn from this'

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

No9 wrote:As it stands, game wise its W-4;L-3:D-1. For a New Zealand Tour that's not a bad return so far. The next 2 games will decide on whether this tour was a success or not.

Have the Lions ever lost more games than they've won on tour?

Id say they would have in 05 if they faced the super rugby sides.

This lot have faced weakened SR sides. Some of them have been like 2nd strings.

Doesn't answer my question though

The Crusaders had close to a full strength side didnt they? Given that no New Zealand team has lost a game to any side out of NZ and I don't think the Crusaders have lost a game at all, that's not too bad really.

I reckon people are exaggerating a lot about how bad this tour has been.

They were missing Read and Crotty but yeah pretty close.

I assume that was because Read was injured. He missed most of the Crusaders games this year no?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I assume that was because Read was injured. He missed most of the Crusaders games this year no?

Yeah he's had injuries, surgery etc.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I assume that was because Read was injured. He missed most of the Crusaders games this year no?

Yeah he's had injuries, surgery etc.

Read was down with a broke thumb, Crotty rib cartilege, S Barrett ankle. The reshuffle of the backline to deal with Crotty being out really didn't work - Havilli had been amazing at FB all year, & struggled with the Lions' rush defence at 12, while Dagg had a poor game.

The big question is, who is getting the plane to fly over the cake tin with a '#GatlandOut' banner?

Also guys who are spoken as like they are the second coming like McKensie have looked quite average against the mighty Lions.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Also guys who are spoken as like they are the second coming like McKensie have looked quite average against the mighty Lions.

McKenzie's too small for an international fullback IMO - like Brett Russell and Ben Blair in the past. He may yet make it as a 10, but got stuck there for the Maori on limited gametime in the position this season

Nice to see my post has been removed... First thought I had a network crash and the post not completed, but as some have quoted some of my post, that's obviously not the case and someone has removed it.

Am I not allowed to have an opinion now..

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Also guys who are spoken as like they are the second coming like McKensie have looked quite average against the mighty Lions.

Agree with that seen a lot of Super18 and I don't get the hype.

Very exciting running but way too many mistakes under the high ball, missed tackles and poor hands.
Flash but not the consistency the AB demand

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Also guys who are spoken as like they are the second coming like McKensie have looked quite average against the mighty Lions.

McKenzie's too small for an international fullback IMO - like Brett Russell and Ben Blair in the past. He may yet make it as a 10, but got stuck there for the Maori on limited gametime in the position this season

Reminds me a bit of Freddie Michelak.

I can understand the criticism of the defensive aspect but poor hands?

I've seen games without a scrum until 60 minutes in.

Its beeen pish from before they went with rubbish selections favouring out of form or injured welshmen over inform players, Tactics nieve and easily countered and a virtually complete lack of attacking options.

I suspect it may be the last lions tour. But at least its been worth a lot of money to the WRU

Must say I'm not a bit surprised. I just listened to the rugby365 podcast (SA) and you should have heard what they had to say about AWJ & Warburton (something like AWJ was like an old man after 10 minutes and Warburton should be no where near the tour) and only one person made any impact from the bench. They didn't seem to have a problem with anyone else - though the backs were quite good.

I think Gatland now knows that he will never get the a job in NZ (let alone the ABs) and as such is looking after his job with the WRU and Welsh team. He knows the Lions is gone now.

Sin é wrote:Must say I'm not a bit surprised. I just listened to the rugby365 podcast (SA) and you should have heard what they had to say about AWJ & Warburton (something like AWJ was like an old man after 10 minutes and Warburton should be no where near the tour) and only one person made any impact from the bench. They didn't seem to have a problem with anyone else - though the backs were quite good.

I think Gatland now knows that he will never get the a job in NZ (let alone the ABs) and as such is looking after his job with the WRU and Welsh team. He knows the Lions is gone now.

How do you think POM played Sin?

I agree Warburton has been poor but the Lions were destroyed at the breakdown so SOB and Falateau are lucky not to get the chop too.

Interesting that 4 years on, the it is more of the same from the anti Lion Gatland

https://www.606v2.com/t45900-why-did-gatland-not-bring-ryan-grant-on

Depressing that you could also re-quote all these comments again (Out of form, injured players, ignoring players playing well)

I was very critical of Gatland on the last tour but think he has done a good job this time apart from some obvious blunders.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I was very critical of Gatland on the last tour but think he has done a good job this time apart from some obvious blunders.

You could say that of anyone. Other than his obvious blunders Fred Goodwin did a good job.

Sorry cant see any similarities between Fred Goodwin and Gatland. Weird comment.

AWJ was done by the 10 min mark, he had nothing left in his knees or lungs.

Sad to see a great push it too far.
Sometimes I think it's better players pick up career ending injury than play on too long and ruin their reputation and others chances of Lions caps plus dash Fans hopes and dreams.

Effing disgrace gatland overlooked the scots, all of whom would be household names if selected selected:-

Steward hogg
Richy grey
Jim Hardy
James Barclee
Jim Fisser
Russell Sprout

Russell Sprout is an excellent fly hack.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Must say I'm not a bit surprised. I just listened to the rugby365 podcast (SA) and you should have heard what they had to say about AWJ & Warburton (something like AWJ was like an old man after 10 minutes and Warburton should be no where near the tour) and only one person made any impact from the bench. They didn't seem to have a problem with anyone else - though the backs were quite good.

I think Gatland now knows that he will never get the a job in NZ (let alone the ABs) and as such is looking after his job with the WRU and Welsh team. He knows the Lions is gone now.

How do you think POM played Sin?

I agree Warburton has been poor but the Lions were destroyed at the breakdown so SOB and Falateau are lucky not to get the chop too.

The Lions clearly took a decision tactically not to compete and keep men on their feet - probably Andy Farrell's idea. It was the same in the previous 2 Saturday games.

The back row was supposedly picked for balance and to challenge the lineout. It seems bizarre to change it when that is what they did.

Personally I think Sam was playing too poorly to justify his test selection so Gatland knowing they would likely lose the first test, Kept Sam out of it so he could justify his selection as captain in the final two tests and use POM as scapegoat.

He did the same thing on the last tour selecting O'Connell rather than AWJ to captain against the Barbarians in the first game. According to POC Gats expected to lose the game which would damage Warbs and AWJ captaincy credentials.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Must say I'm not a bit surprised. I just listened to the rugby365 podcast (SA) and you should have heard what they had to say about AWJ & Warburton (something like AWJ was like an old man after 10 minutes and Warburton should be no where near the tour) and only one person made any impact from the bench. They didn't seem to have a problem with anyone else - though the backs were quite good.

I think Gatland now knows that he will never get the a job in NZ (let alone the ABs) and as such is looking after his job with the WRU and Welsh team. He knows the Lions is gone now.

How do you think POM played Sin?

I agree Warburton has been poor but the Lions were destroyed at the breakdown so SOB and Falateau are lucky not to get the chop too.

I think he played well in the setpiece, but didn't have much of a go at the breakdown because he was tackling so much. POM usually doesn't make many tackles, but is first or 2nd man in to contest the breakdown. You can't contest if you are making tackles.

Interesting comment which I think came from Ferris to Joe.ie that POM maybe injured (his ribs were bandaged up in the 1st Test and they were not in the Maori game). He was taken off when he got a belt in the ribs. Gatland probably playing mind games so won't admit he is injured.

LondonTiger wrote:I do think there is a risk of being over critical to Gats.

After all tours to NZ do seem to be a bit of a graveyard for Lions:

2005 - SCW makes a right royal hash of it.
1993 - Midweek team go native
1983 - Hammered from pilalr to post with a skipper not good enough to be the 4th choice replacement.
1977 - Reluctant skipper, dismal tests, unhappy party.

McGeechan's reputation has escaped largely unscathed from 1993 because he delivered wins either side of that unhappy shambles.

Who knows, Gatland might yet deliver a Test win (one would be fine by me, thank you very much). If he doesn't, then it won't mean he did everything wrong, just as Woodward didn't get everything wrong in 2005.

Don't know enough about Gatand's man management skills but a lot of old Wasps players rate him. Dallaglio thought he was better with players than Woodward but also said Woodward had more management vision, which worked well over several seasons, as opposed to a short tour environment like the Lions.

I suspect Gatland stuck to his guns in Australia four years ago because he felt in his bones that his tactics would work. After all, the first test was a win. The reason he seems uncharacteristically fickle in NZ is probably a reflection of doubts that the same recipe will work this time.

This has been the worst Lions tour I've followed. It's shambolic and leaving me wondering if I'll ever follow one again.

The selections, callups etc are just bizarre, RIP The Lions.....

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!!!

Not surprised. The issue I have is that Lions board knew Warren and the truth about what he brings.. and they knew it wouldn't work in NZ and yet they still hired him.

SCW hashed up the lions yes but firstly the quality of the players he had were far less and also lets not forget that BOD was at the peak of his powers, that 1st game and the series would have been far different (a much more respectable 3-0 loss) and why, because frankly with JW still injured, they didn't have many class players in that squad after BOD.

This tour he had a glut of players, one team had beaten NZ, AUS and SA the year before, one team had won 2 6N back to back, a series in AUS 3-0, 18 wins in 19 matches and yet he couldn't go beyond

1st phase - crash ball inside centre
2nd phase - crash ball flanker
3rd phase - dummy 2nd receiver gap for 13 to run into.
4th phase - kick for territory.

Thats all he plays, thats all he has ever played. Its why he has only beaten Australia once with Wales (his first game) out of 12 attempts. Its why NZ have crushed him time and time again.... because he's predictable and as long as you can deal with the physical stuff you will always turn over his sides. He has shown he can mix it up with the best of the NH but its not good enough vs. the very best. In 2013 lets be truthful now... he played Mako Vunipola, Tom Youngs in his front row and was still able to get an edge upfront. He faced a very weak AUS team, one that had lost at home to Samoa and Scotland in the same RWC cycle. The team ENG faced in 2016 were far more balanced and superior and yet they with 1/4 of the players and a signficantly lesser bench were able to win 3-0. It kind of says it all about Gatland's achievement.
He has had success and he should be applauded for it but everyone knows his game wasn't well suited for NZ no matter how many players he had available.

Mods still allowing Hersh to ruin the forum I see.

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?

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.

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?