Cymru Lions v Wallabies, 3rd Test Match Thread, Sat July 6, 1100am

Diamondmaker

I bumped into Warburton, Roberts, Falateu and Lydiate on Sat night after the game in Maccers. Got some good pics, Sam is a gent. Easy to see why people are so keen to want to support him.

Roberts....Err..less so....

Of note the Lions kept their 4AM fast food visits for after the work was done, not the Friday morning before the test.

I did not ask Roberts about BODgate, hes scary :eek:

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

In the Waratahs game?

Yes I do. I also remember his performance in that first half, which was better in certain as let's than anyone else on tour had been. And he was even better the next week in the first test. I've explained why I thought he was great in those games individually. Just because Sky don't want to put together a video of a guy hitting offensive breakdowns (can hardly blame them, the casual fan wouldn't understand what they're watching) doesn't mean a player isn't doing well.

People need to get over it. Warburton was the only player capable of doing what he did. Tipuric showed he couldn't do it against the Burmbies. SOB was never competing with Warburton, he was kept out of the side by Croft more so than Warburton, and I think that was a mistake.

Ah c'mon down from that high horse IBF, you'll get a nose bleed!

I think people can have their opinions and not be accused as 'casual fans' or needing to 'get over it'.

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

Ah c'mon down from that high horse IBF, you'll get a nose bleed!

I think people can have their opinions and not be accused as 'casual fans' or needing to 'get over it'.

I'm not calling anyone here a casual fan, I'm saying that's who Sky's coverage is aimed at. I think that's fair enough.

I do think people need to let it go though. Warburton's selection was more than justified by his performances in both tests. I never even expected him to play so well in the 2nd. It just shows that whatever Gatland was looking at in training, he clearly had a good grasp on how it would translate to the field. I still think Howley completely wasted the talent in the back line though. I would love to see a Schmidt/Gatland partnership.

First Up

.ak wrote: »

That's a completely misleading question. You're fishing for the answer you want. Look at it subjectively. The reason the midfield was not working in the first two tests was because JD was moved to 12. I have sympathy for him, but that's life. He failed to impress at 12 and in reality the reason the midfield didn't work rests on his shoulders. Harsh, but true - there's plenty of analysis to back up that view also.

The key to the midfield working was having a big center that could disrupt and distribute well. JD couldn't do that. Had BOD started with Roberts I have no doubt that midfield would've torn the Australians to shreds.

The real pity is we never got to see it. Instead we got an average performance from the midfield where Roberts outshone JD. People don't wait 4 years to see the Welsh midfield they've seen year in year out play a load of average rugby. JD didn't qualify his selection so much as Roberts did.

I prefer to look at it objectively. That is also what Gatland was paid to do - and did. Neither BOD or Davies impressed in the first two tests. One was playing out of position, the other was outside a makeshift 12. Gatland had a call to make as to how would play. outside Roberts. He made the call. They won, breaking several records. I would say that was objective achieved. But just because it worked doesn't mean it was right eh?

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm not calling anyone here a casual fan, I'm saying that's who Sky's coverage is aimed at. I think that's fair enough.

I do think people need to let it go though. Warburton's selection was more than justified by his performances in both tests. I never even expected him to play so well in the 2nd. It just shows that whatever Gatland was looking at in training, he clearly had a good grasp on how it would translate to the field. I still think Howley completely wasted the talent in the back line though. I would love to see a Schmidt/Gatland partnership.

I think 'letting it go' is a bit much though. Can we not have opinions on how players play? For example, I thought Warburton should've been picked for the 2nd test, but absolutely not based on his performance in the 1st test which was just ok. He's an intelligent OS and what he doesn't have in raw power he makes up in smarts. However I thought he was really struggling in the first test to impose himself on the deck, a lot of his clear outs he would roll off the player and and rely on someone else knocking them off their feet.

Like the people that were waiting for him to slip up and dance on his grave should he make an error, there's also an element of people not seeing he was not in form and won't have a bad word said against him.

In short, my view is this; he was the right choice for the wrong type of game plan.

.ak

First Up wrote: »

I prefer to look at it objectively. That is also what Gatland was paid to do - and did. Neither BOD or Davies impressed in the first two tests. One was playing out of position, the other was outside a makeshift 12. Gatland had a call to make as to how would play. outside Roberts. He made the call. They won, breaking several records. I would day that was objective achieved. But just because it worked doesn't man it was right eh?

Whilst your subtle attempt at sarcasm was almost missed there I have to disagree with the point you're trying to make. Can you not separate a result from a performance? Or do you not bother watching rugby matches and just wait for the score at the end to make up your decision on what happened?

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

I think 'letting it go' is a bit much though. Can we not have opinions on how players play? For example, I thought Warburton should've been picked for the 2nd test, but absolutely not based on his performance in the 1st test which was just ok. He's an intelligent OS and what he doesn't have in raw power he makes up in smarts. However I thought he was really struggling in the first test to impose himself on the deck, a lot of his clear outs he would roll off the player and and rely on someone else knocking them off their feet.

Like the people that were waiting for him to slip up and dance on his grave should he make an error, there's also an element of people not seeing he was not in form and won't have a bad word said against him.

In short, my view is this; he was the right choice for the wrong type of game plan.

Firstly he's the most powerful OS in the squad. Secondly his clear outs were better than any other back row player on tour. That's my opinion, but also that of most of the guys I know. So I'm not sure where you think he's lacking in power or he's missing clear outs. You must be confusing him with Justin Tipuric! :pac:

And this is another thing that annoys me. Wrong type of game plan? I asked before what game plan would be better suited to beating the Aussies and no one gave even a half decent answer! Gatland's approach was perfect. It was just shocking execution in the backs which let them down. I cannot think of a single game plan employed by a NH side that would have been half as good as the approach they took to beat an Australian team playing the way Deans had them playing.

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Firstly he's the most powerful OS in the squad. Secondly his clear outs were better than any other back row player on tour. That's my opinion, but also that of most of the guys I know. So I'm not sure where you think he's lacking in power or he's missing clear outs. You must be confusing him with Justin Tipuric! :pac:

And this is another thing that annoys me. Wrong type of game plan? I asked before what game plan would be better suited to beating the Aussies and no one gave even a half decent answer! Gatland's approach was perfect. It was just shocking execution in the backs which let them down. I cannot think of a single game plan employed by a NH side that would have been half as good as the approach they took to beat an Australian team playing the way Deans had them playing.

For me the game plan revolved around the backrow. It's all well and good saying the set pieces win and lose a game, but you don't choose when a ball is knocked on or a game needs to be restarted. You pick a team based on what they can do on the field, and then you pick players that will help you win set pieces, in that order, IMO.

A backrow with Lydiate, Warburton and Heaslip screamed defence. Gatland wanted to strangle the life out of Oz defensively and frustrate them, shut them down and not let them operate. That, imo, was his game plan. And it was wrong.

A forced back row of Lydiate, SOB and Faletau was attack, attack, attack. What Faletau and SOB lack in terms of niggily ground work they make up in carries and distribution and raw power at ruck time. Because of that they established a platform for Howley's backs to work off. You're quick to blame Howley, and whilst I'm not absconding him from blame, his backs had no ball to work with because we were never interested in taking the ball and trying to pulverize the Australian defence in the first two tests.

In my eyes, we gave the Australian attack far too much respect, and didn't respect our own attacking platform enough.

For Paws

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I cannot think of a single game plan employed by a NH side that would have been half as good as the approach they took to beat an Australian team playing the way Deans had them playing.

Did Gatland employ this game plan when Wales toured Australia ?
How did that go btw ?

Which of the these sides would not have beaten Aus twice in a 3 Test series ?
England, France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Italy.

Which of the following sides would the 3rd Test Lions beat in a 3 Test series ?
France, NZ, SA ?

Can anyone see Gatland's 'plan' working in NZ or SA ?

phog

.ak wrote: »

I dunno, if that was the case then I feel the Lions will lose their stock fairly quick. Why not just send whoever is the current 6N champs down south then?

That's rather silly really.

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

For me the game plan revolved around the backrow. It's all well and good saying the set pieces win and lose a game, but you don't choose when a ball is knocked on or a game needs to be restarted. You pick a team based on what they can do on the field, and then you pick players that will help you win set pieces, in that order, IMO.

A backrow with Lydiate, Warburton and Heaslip screamed defence. Gatland wanted to strangle the life out of Oz defensively and frustrate them, shut them down and not let them operate. That, imo, was his game plan. And it was wrong.

A forced back row of Lydiate, SOB and Faletau was attack, attack, attack. What Faletau and SOB lack in terms of niggily ground work they make up in carries and distribution and raw power at ruck time. Because of that they established a platform for Howley's backs to work off. You're quick to blame Howley, and whilst I'm not absconding him from blame, his backs had no ball to work with because we were never interested in taking the ball and trying to pulverize the Australian defence in the first two tests.

In my eyes, we gave the Australian attack far too much respect, and didn't respect our own attacking platform enough.

Our pack were excellent offensively in test 1. The backs just didn't control the game nearly as well as they did in test 3. What exactly are you thinking the difference was between the two performances and what did the back row have to do with it?

I think he got a bit wrong in test 2. But his game plan was much better exemplified in test 1 and Warburton was a big part of it going forward.

Gatland did not pick that pack based on defense. Defense is the last thing that crosses his mind when picking sides.

irishbucsfan

For Paws wrote: »

Did Gatland employ this game plan when Wales toured Australia ?
How did that go btw ?

Which of the these sides would not have beaten Aus twice in a 3 Test series ?
England, France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Italy.

Which of the following sides would the 3rd Test Lions beat in a 3 Test series ?
France, NZ, SA ?

Can anyone see Gatland's 'plan' working in NZ or SA ?

Here is someone comparing Wales to the Lions again. How novel.

First Up

.ak wrote: »

Whilst your subtle attempt at sarcasm was almost missed there I have to disagree with the point you're trying to make. Can you not separate a result from a performance? Or do you not bother watching rugby matches and just wait for the score at the end to make up your decision on what happened?

Not a matter of separating anything and I have watched and played in enough matches to be able to figure out good deal of what happened. The performance produces the result and to suggest anything is otherwise is beyond daft.

You say that for you it boils down to "who is the best 13". I would respectfully suggest that you need to think about it a bit harder. Picking a team is precisely that - selecting the players that can work best together in a specific situation. Coaches don't always get it right. On Saturday Gatland did.

You want a talent or beauty contest between individual players. Gatland wanted a team performance that produces a result. One of you is the Wales and Lions coach and the other isn't. Not hard to see why

Micky Dolenz

First Up wrote: »

You want a talent or beauty contest between individual players. Gatland wanted a team performance that produces a result. One of you is the Wales and Lions coach and the other isn't. Not hard to see why

me-ow.

You are right, May has well close down the discussion forum. Lets never question coaching or team selection again.

First Up

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

me-ow.

You are right, May has well close down the discussion forum. Lets never question coaching or team selection again.

Especially after record breaking wins.

awec

My opinion:

1. The Lions had a lot of potential, that squad of players had the potential to win well by playing excellent rugby. We didn't do that.

2. The fact that after an entire series Gatland didn't know what his best team was is a shame. The final test he went back to his Welsh boys and his dull tactics. There was no need for it whatsoever.

3. Gatland will escape some criticism because it is the first time the Lions have won in so long. While it is good that we won the series on the whole I don't think the team delivered against the potential that they had.

4. The Lions winning this series should never have been in doubt.

former legend

First Up wrote: »

Especially after record breaking wins.

The final scoreline glosses over the fact that this game was right in the balance with twenty minutes to go. Australia had serious momentum behind them but couldn't make it pay and then just collapsed completely in the closing stages. Small margins etc etc, but if Faletau hadn't won that heroic turnover in his own 22 to relieve the pressure, things could have ended very differently.

So yes, there is still plenty of scope for discussing selections and tactics.

buck65

I thought Conor Murray gave the Lions a far better distribution of the ball and box kicked cleverly, made a massive difference.

Sexton also managed to kick one good Garryowen after 3 poor kicks that turned the game around.

Small things make the difference, not forgetting the genius that is Leigh Halfpenny and his 2 line breaks.

Jonathan Davies was immense.

JagerScout

buck65 wrote: »

Jonathan Davies was immense.

holy hyperbole

jamiedav2011

buck65 wrote: »

I thought Conor Murray gave the Lions a far better distribution of the ball and box kicked cleverly, made a massive difference.

Sexton also managed to kick one good Garryowen after 3 poor kicks that turned the game around.

Small things make the difference, not forgetting the genius that is Leigh Halfpenny and his 2 line breaks.

Jonathan Davies was immense.

:eek:
You cannot be serious? /John McEnroe

.ak

phog wrote: »

That's rather silly really.

What is? The idea? Ofcourse. I was using a silly idea to make a point. The point still stands though! I've no problem if the players are there on merit. I do have a problem with players being there because the coach wants to go with what he knows.

Buer

Davies had a seriously good game. Tackled like a demon and showed some real class at times, particularly for Sexton's try. Kicking was really good too which is exactly what Gatland had asked of him in the build up.

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Our pack were excellent offensively in test 1. The backs just didn't control the game nearly as well as they did in test 3. What exactly are you thinking the difference was between the two performances and what did the back row have to do with it?

I think he got a bit wrong in test 2. But his game plan was much better exemplified in test 1 and Warburton was a big part of it going forward.

Gatland did not pick that pack based on defense. Defense is the last thing that crosses his mind when picking sides.

You're a flanker, I'm not, so to be honest I'll take your opinion over mine on the subject, but as an observer I thought our backrow made a massive difference in the third test because of their carrying. It's a small thing, but when you look at each time Faletau or SOB got the ball they carried the ball over the gain line, sucked in defenders and the Australian defensive line had a lot less time and bodies to deal with breaks.

Also we'll agree to disagree regarding your last line. I don't think either of us really knows what crosses Gatland's mind.

jamiedav2011

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Our pack were excellent offensively in test 1. The backs just didn't control the game nearly as well as they did in test 3. What exactly are you thinking the difference was between the two performances and what did the back row have to do with it?

I think he got a bit wrong in test 2. But his game plan was much better exemplified in test 1 and Warburton was a big part of it going forward.

Gatland did not pick that pack based on defense. Defense is the last thing that crosses his mind when picking sides.

Picking Lydiate wouldn't really reflect that opinion.

.ak

First Up wrote: »

Not a matter of separating anything and I have watched and played in enough matches to be able to figure out good deal of what happened. The performance produces the result and to suggest anything is otherwise is beyond daft.

You say that for you it boils down to "who is the best 13". I would respectfully suggest that you need to think about it a bit harder. Picking a team is precisely that - selecting the players that can work best together in a specific situation. Coaches don't always get it right. On Saturday Gatland did.

You want a talent or beauty contest between individual players. Gatland wanted a team performance that produces a result. One of you is the Wales and Lions coach and the other isn't. Not hard to see why

Just because I'm involved in this discussion doesn't mean I won't moderate it either. This isn't the first time you've been a dick to another poster, so I'm done playing nice, you can take a week long break and improve your posting style upon your return please.

P.Walnuts

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Gatland did not pick that pack based on defense. Defense is the last thing that crosses his mind when picking sides.

Eh Lydiate??

wonderfullife

.ak wrote: »

After letting the dust settle, I think this series will still leave a bad taste in my mouth. I think we were lucky to be even competing for the series in the last game, and with such great resources at hand it was a shame really. Australia were not great, apart from their defence in the 2nd test, and a few loose line breaks through the games.

And ofcourse there's the selections. We can sit and argue about Warburton, JD or Phillips actually deserving their place in any of the match day 23s til we're blue in the face, but it would seem everyone has their own idea and that's that. But in my mind I don't think any of them did enough to deserve their spots.

It brings into question having a coach from one national job going straight into the Lions role. I completely understand why he picked them. He went with what he knows. He knew on their day all the Welsh players can do what's required of them and they would understand his needs.

But is that what the Lions is all about? Absolutely not. It's been a while since I've since them lift the cup, and that's great and all, maybe some NH bragging rights, but I can't help feel .. deflated?

Good post.

My chief problem is this - if they are going to go with a current 6N manager then the coaching setup should reflect the whole ethos of the Lions.

It's all well and good preaching the Lions is about uniting four countries when the coaching setup is almost exclusively Welsh and English.

In the spirit of the Lions, there should be a member of each country on the coaching panel. The Head Coach will always retain the final call (as Gatland proved with BOD) but at least be hearing different voices and perspectives. If not each nationality then at least someone who has good knowledge of the individual nations.

It's not even about favouring your own nationality. As an example, suppose someone like Les Kiss or even Scott Johnson was on the coaching ticket, they may bring more intimate knowledge on how to get the best out of certain players and offer a different perspective on how to utilise players from other nationalities.

First Up wrote: »

On careers to date, BOD.

Which do you think was the most effective midfield partnership in the three tests?

To answer your rhetorical question - DOC-JD.

But seeing as your question was self-serving, the question is who was the most effective centre partnership all tour? Manu-BOD. Clearly. They were superb in the limited chance they had together.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Our pack were excellent offensively in test 1. The backs just didn't control the game nearly as well as they did in test 3. What exactly are you thinking the difference was between the two performances and what did the back row have to do with it?

I think he got a bit wrong in test 2. But his game plan was much better exemplified in test 1 and Warburton was a big part of it going forward.

Gatland did not pick that pack based on defense. Defense is the last thing that crosses his mind when picking sides.

First of all a scrum is a collective effort led by the front row but you would have to question why we didn't achieve dominance in Test 1 in the scrum. Because we had Corbs on the field and AJ and we only achieved parity. It can't all be down to Roman Poitre because any lay observer could see we were smashing them in Test 3 and any ref in any hemisphere would have pinged them.

Secondly, the first 2 minutes illustrated what a difference SOB can make, when he got the pass after Hibbards dart, Lydiate got behind him and they bashed their way up to the try line. I didn't see much of that in Test 1 or Test 2 from Warbs.

Thirdly, as i said before, we actually constructed more phases (by far) in Test 3 to Test 1, and that was without Warburton. Your argument is that Warburton was vital. not for his defensive shift or groundhog stuff especially, but in the way the Lions wanted to attack. Yet we attacked better both in terms of phase play and being clinical in his absence.

Could you then concede that Warbs wasn't actually "vital" to this gameplan and that Gatlands decision to make him Captain actually prevented him even considering other alternatives? Because when the change was enforced we performed far better in attack, were equally good in defence and the backrow unit produced the performance of the Tour as a unit.

who_me

.ak wrote: »

After letting the dust settle, I think this series will still leave a bad taste in my mouth. I think we were lucky to be even competing for the series in the last game, and with such great resources at hand it was a shame really. Australia were not great, apart from their defence in the 2nd test, and a few loose line breaks through the games.

And ofcourse there's the selections. We can sit and argue about Warburton, JD or Phillips actually deserving their place in any of the match day 23s til we're blue in the face, but it would seem everyone has their own idea and that's that. But in my mind I don't think any of them did enough to deserve their spots.

It brings into question having a coach from one national job going straight into the Lions role. I completely understand why he picked them. He went with what he knows. He knew on their day all the Welsh players can do what's required of them and they would understand his needs.

But is that what the Lions is all about? Absolutely not. It's been a while since I've since them lift the cup, and that's great and all, maybe some NH bragging rights, but I can't help feel .. deflated?

If Wales had had a poor 6N, I'd agree with you. But as 6N champions it's hard to argue with Gatland selecting a lot of them. It was the same in '09 where there were 16 Irish touring, based on the Grand Slam.

Perhaps the worst thing about having a 6N coach as Lions coach is that there will inevitably be a spotlight on him regarding national bias, whether real or exaggerated.

wonderfullife

As a little aside, i just read about this exchange before the game:


AWJ: What's your range today?

1/2p: Halfway.

Apparently that was it, one word answer no faffing around and anything on the half way line was being kicked lol. Class.

who_me

wonderfullife wrote: »

1/2p: Halfway.

Jeez, does he do everything by halves?

wonderfullife

who_me wrote: »

Jeez, does he do everything by halves?

lol. Some man for one man. Unreal kicker, great under the high ball, great counter-attacker and nearly every girl i know swoons when he takes off his scrum-cap to take a kick!! I think The Verve penned a song about the likes of him!

.ak

who_me wrote: »

If Wales had had a poor 6N, I'd agree with you. But as 6N champions it's hard to argue with Gatland selecting a lot of them. It was the same in '09 where there were 16 Irish touring, based on the Grand Slam.

Perhaps the worst thing about having a 6N coach as Lions coach is that there will inevitably be a spotlight on him regarding national bias, whether real or exaggerated.

No, I agree, I'm not arguing that. I'm afraid my point is getting a little lost and people think I'm being anti-Welsh or something.

The problem I have is the 50/50 calls were going to the players Gatland had experience with. If it was any other team, say a national team, I honestly wouldn't have issue with it. But the entire point of the Lions is missed if that happens.

Was it 16 Irish that travelled in 09? I always had it in my head it was '09. Anyway, the first test had a fairly even spread of players throughout the nations.

Grimebox

Could you imagine if he was called Fullpenny and could kick the length of the pitch... every penatly = 3 points

Tombo2001

I have a lot of sympathy for Gatlands comments after the event that the victory was bittersweet because of the comments that came his way after the O'Driscoll decision.

Now that the dust has settled, it is very clear that some of these were just complete nonsense - e.g. that it was somehow revenge for the IRFU treating him badly.

I would say that particularly hurtful to him were the comments that questions his integrity. But I'd say the most hurtful of all was probably the comment from Willie John McBride that 'the ethos of the Lions is slipping' - saying that Gatland has compromised the values of the Lions. That was a blow. To be honest, I cant say if WJ McBride is right or wrong. But you cant argue with an absolutely resounding victory on Saturday, the only detraction from which has been the ongoing sour grapes out of Ireland.

In other words lads, will ye give it a rest.

I cant ever remember a teams 'supporters' being so disgruntled with a win. Do you think the English are sitting at home this morning, saying, I dont care if Murray won Wimbledon - he shouldnt have played so many back hand passing shots when it Djokovic was returning them so well.....

phog

.ak wrote: »

What is? The idea? Ofcourse. I was using a silly idea to make a point. The point still stands though! I've no problem if the players are there on merit. I do have a problem with players being there because the coach wants to go with what he knows.

I never suggested otherwise My post was about Gatland being selected the coach not the players selected by the coach.

wonderfullife

.ak wrote: »

No, I agree, I'm not arguing that. I'm afraid my point is getting a little lost and people think I'm being anti-Welsh or something.

The problem I have is the 50/50 calls were going to the players Gatland had experience with. If it was any other team, say a national team, I honestly wouldn't have issue with it. But the entire point of the Lions is missed if that happens.

Was it 16 Irish that travelled in 09? I always had it in my head it was '09. Anyway, the first test had a fairly even spread of players throughout the nations.

I read somewhere a comment about the nationality thing for the Final Test.

In that, even though 10 Welsh started, the XV who would end up deciding the game would be a very different complexion.

And i suppose that's a fair point in hindsight.

With the game at 22-16 and in the balance this was the XV on the field:

15 Halfpenny
14 Bowe
13 JD
12 Roberts
11 North
10 Sexton
9 Murray
8 Faletau/Tipuric (5 min blood sub)
7 SOB
6 Lydiate
5 Parling
4 AWJ
3 Cole
2 Youngs
1 Corbs

7 Welsh, 4 English, 4 Irish.

So i suppose that illustrates Gatland always had faith in the squad and in their ability to execute the gameplan and bring it home. And there can be no doubt that Youngs, Cole and Murray had a huge impact during that vital 12 minute spell of domination.

All in all, you would have to say one thing Gatland got very right was the use of the bench. He gave Murray a full 30 mins and recognised early in 2nd half that Hibbard/AJ were tiring from their huge shift.

I'm still not entirely sure the Sexton change was necessary, but Farrell played very well too so can't argue with it.

Buer

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I would say that particularly hurtful to him were the comments that questions his integrity. But I'd say the most hurtful of all was probably the comment from Willie John McBride that 'the ethos of the Lions is slipping' - saying that Gatland has compromised the values of the Lions. That was a blow.

I'd say he couldn't have given two hoots what WJM said!

Micky Dolenz

I like that Sexton was like a demon coming off the park. Shows the mettle he is made of.

wonderfullife

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I have a lot of sympathy for Gatlands comments after the event that the victory was bittersweet because of the comments that came his way after the O'Driscoll decision.

Now that the dust has settled, it is very clear that some of these were just complete nonsense - e.g. that it was somehow revenge for the IRFU treating him badly.

I would say that particularly hurtful to him were the comments that questions his integrity. But I'd say the most hurtful of all was probably the comment from Willie John McBride that 'the ethos of the Lions is slipping' - saying that Gatland has compromised the values of the Lions. That was a blow. To be honest, I cant say if WJ McBride is right or wrong. But you cant argue with an absolutely resounding victory on Saturday, the only detraction from which has been the ongoing sour grapes out of Ireland.

In other words lads, will ye give it a rest.

I cant ever remember a teams 'supporters' being so disgruntled with a win. Do you think the English are sitting at home this morning, saying, I dont care if Murray won Wimbledon - he shouldnt have played so many back hand passing shots when it Djokovic was returning them so well.....

No i think they're sitting at home claiming the "dour Scot" as one of their own now.

And what are you on about? In every sport people can remain unhappy despite winning. Look at soccer! Ireland beat the Faroe Islands last month playing brutal, caveman football. Just because we won we can't complain about selection or style of play? That's nonsense.

When Holland got to the world cup Final a few years back, Johann Cryuff came out and said he was disgusted by the way they had achieved their success and couldn't feel happy with the style of football.

That's really a nonsensical argument you're making. Win and nothing else matters? Sorry there's a lot more to it than that.

who_me

.ak wrote: »

No, I agree, I'm not arguing that. I'm afraid my point is getting a little lost and people think I'm being anti-Welsh or something.

The problem I have is the 50/50 calls were going to the players Gatland had experience with. If it was any other team, say a national team, I honestly wouldn't have issue with it. But the entire point of the Lions is missed if that happens.

Was it 16 Irish that travelled in 09? I always had it in my head it was '09. Anyway, the first test had a fairly even spread of players throughout the nations.

9 from Munster alone (though 2 never travelled), 16 Irish in total. It was a bigger squad too though. Or should I say - it was a bigger squad than Gatland's initial squad!

I actually think it's happened fairly often that the backbone of a Lions team has been the dominant team of the day, with quality players dropped in from the other sides; it's not always an even spread.

To be fair, I didn't agree with Warburton as tour captain (neither did most neutrals), nor Davies selection. But I don't any of his selections really backfired badly. Philips was probably the worst - in being taken off after just 50 minutes.

Tombo2001

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's really a nonsensical argument you're making. Win and nothing else matters? Sorry there's a lot more to it than that.

Ah the perils of the chat forum.

Tell me that my argument is nonsensical.

Then attribute a statement to me that I didnt make, and roundly disprove the statement that I didnt make!

Oh well.

wonderfullife

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ah the perils of the chat forum.

Tell me that my argument is nonsensical.

Then attribute a statement to me that I didnt make, and roundly disprove the statement that I didnt make!

Oh well.

You said amongst other things "will ye give it a rest", "sour grapes out of ireland", "can't remember the last time people been disgruntled with a win".....

all implying, when you win, that's all there is to it and forget about any selection issues or style of play.

You seem to think this is all about BOD and you're trying to turn this into patriotic sour grapes by the Irish.......

.....But if you actually read through all the threads you'll see clearly it isn't and wasn't. As controversial as the BOD decision was, people were equally upset about the Phillips call, Hibbard (form), Roberts (fitness), Parling (ineffective Test 2) etc. Bear in mind that in those 4 cases there was an argument for their replacements to be: Irish, English, English, Scottish.

Most of us in here have debated and argued selection and gameplan, not to the bias of picking Irish but to seeing the best Lions side take the field and play good rugbyand maximise the use of the talented squad. And most of us didn't give a monkeys if those players were English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh.

.ak

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I have a lot of sympathy for Gatlands comments after the event that the victory was bittersweet because of the comments that came his way after the O'Driscoll decision.

Now that the dust has settled, it is very clear that some of these were just complete nonsense - e.g. that it was somehow revenge for the IRFU treating him badly.

I would say that particularly hurtful to him were the comments that questions his integrity. But I'd say the most hurtful of all was probably the comment from Willie John McBride that 'the ethos of the Lions is slipping' - saying that Gatland has compromised the values of the Lions. That was a blow. To be honest, I cant say if WJ McBride is right or wrong. But you cant argue with an absolutely resounding victory on Saturday, the only detraction from which has been the ongoing sour grapes out of Ireland.

In other words lads, will ye give it a rest.

I cant ever remember a teams 'supporters' being so disgruntled with a win. Do you think the English are sitting at home this morning, saying, I dont care if Murray won Wimbledon - he shouldnt have played so many back hand passing shots when it Djokovic was returning them so well.....

Who should give it a rest? What sour grapes?

I'm not trying to be smart, but are you talking about certain posters here, or just making broad sweeping statements?

buck65

wonderfullife wrote: »

No i think they're sitting at home claiming the "dour Scot" as one of their own now.

And what are you on about? In every sport people can remain unhappy despite winning. Look at soccer! Ireland beat the Faroe Islands last month playing brutal, caveman football. Just because we won we can't complain about selection or style of play? That's nonsense.

When Holland got to the world cup Final a few years back, Johann Cryuff came out and said he was disgusted by the way they had achieved their success and couldn't feel happy with the style of football.

That's really a nonsensical argument you're making. Win and nothing else matters? Sorry there's a lot more to it than that.

that post is pappycack, they were superb on Saturday, excellent rugby.

andyman

I haven't been reading the last few pages, so I apologise if all of these points have been mentioned, but these are my views of the tour as a whole.

Despite the win, I'm disappointed overall. My reasons do stem, but aren't limited to, the BOD fiasco as it really opened my eyes.

What a lot of us have forgotten about is the "tradition" of the Lions. The 4 countries of the British Isles being represented by the best they have to offer and putting on an exhibition of world class rugby along with the SH opposition they face. We didn't see this at all on this tour. It was dreadful. The first two and a half tests were absolutely awful and the second half of the third is when we saw some of that "Lions" magic which only happened when Conor Murray came on and was able to release Sexton into the game, not to mention the magic from Halfpenny.

The Lions lost the series in 2009 against South Africa, but Geech brought back the tradition of the Lions and it resulted in 3 wonderful exhibitions in rugby union and it was something that we (arguably) hadn't seen since 1997. Geech built a plan around the best in the team, Gatland built a team around the plan only he knows.

I'm delighted for the Lions and I'm delighted for BOD that he finally gets his series win, but lets be honest with ourselves here. If you were following the Lions all around Australia and witnessed that puke rugby that we were playing against a very poor Australia side where we were lucky to win the first test and looked toothless in the second, would you genuinely come home delighted with the experience? I don't think I would, but obviously it's a position which is hard to take a definitive stance on. The SA series had me on the edge of my seat in all three tests. It was excellent. This series, not so much.

Keith Wood got it absolutely spot on during the week. The Lions won, but there was nothing extra special about the win in my eyes. The way Gatland set out it just felt like another test series Down Under where he picked the players that suited his gameplan, and didn't pick the best XV possible in any of the three tests. He took one recognised 12 in Roberts, brought in Christian Wade and Shane Williams when McFadden had just scored a hat-trick of tries for Ireland. It was absolute nonsense.

I say congratulations to the lads but I will not be raving about what a fantastic series this was when we go to New Zealand in 4 years time. 2009 and 1997 will always stick out in my mind.

Anybody who plans to respond "but they won", don't bother. I covered the points why I'm disappointed despite the win.

To those who plan to say "I doubt the players care what you think", get down off your high horse. I post my opinions regardless of what anybody thinks.

For Paws

When Geech led Series losing after series losing Lions Tours, I cried out for a change.
Why were the Lions not led by the best coach in the NH ?

Ah, you never know what you've lost 'til it's gone.

Bring back Geech, at least he understands what being a Lion is all about.

One more thing; Like ak I have a sour taste even after a Series win. Many, like myself, who protested about BOD's exclusion did so not because he is Irish, but because he is one of the true greats of the game. Was it so important to win a Series that you're prepared to treat someone like that ?
If Warburton had not been injured, but played poorly, would WG have dropped him
in the same manner ?

irishbucsfan

Jesus you lads must have been despondent after the way we won our grand slam!

JagerScout

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Jesus you lads must have been despondent after the way we won our grand slam!

despondent? bit much.


also Lions =/= Ireland in terms of emotion, pride and investment

andyman

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Jesus you lads must have been despondent after the way we won our grand slam!

How on Earth can you compare the two? Ireland were competing to win something. That's what the goal of any team in the 6 Nations is.

The Lions is completely different. The Lions is supposed to be an exhibition comprised of the best in the NH and putting on a show for the world against a SH powerhouse.

irishbucsfan

andyman wrote: »

How on Earth can you compare the two? Ireland were competing to win something. That's what the goal of any team in the 6 Nations is.

The Lions is completely different. The Lions is supposed to be an exhibition comprised of the best in the NH and putting on a show for the world against a SH powerhouse.

That's one way of looking at it. I would say its about putting a team together that can win a test series. Brian O'Driscoll was desperate to win a test series, not put on an exhibition.