I'm sorry, Bushy, but I can't follow the logic that 'what Gatland has done is very near miraculous' anymore than I can follow the logic that with Gatland gone, Wales will revert to losing heavily like they have in past decades. I'm was born in the mid-70s and I remember Wales playing fun, attacking rugby. Attacking rugby was the Wales Way, in the same way as Eddie Jones talks about playing rugby the Japan Way (super fast) or the England Way (set piece and power-led). Many were the times that I wished some of the kick-and-clap England teams would play the Wales Way back then! Then Gatland arrived and got Wales to play a much more negative and defence-obsessed style. He had some success with it, but he made them defensively stronger at the expense of their attack. And that's always been the biggest problem with Gatland and where I think he's done Wales a disservice: his style considers attack and defence as mutually exclusive - you can have one but not both. If Wales have a good defence, they can't have a good attack too can they? It stands to reason, so which do you want Wales? Which would you prefer? Have a good defence and stay in games and be competitive, or have a good attack and carry on getting regular thrashings, because you can't have both you know. This is the rhetoric that I've been hearing from Welsh fans and pundits for years. Gatland seems to have convinced them its an absolute truth. Gatland couldn't take the Welsh strength of playing attacking rugby (the Wales Way) and add to it, oh no, that was impossible, he had to scrap it in order to make them competitive...
Gatland didn't sacrifice the attack to make the defence better and thus make Wales competitive, he's just rubbish at coaching attack. When Wales were at SA's tryline in the semi, they put together 20 phases that amounted to nothing more than a forward running straight into a defender 20 times. No guile, no offloads, no quick passes, cut-out passes, sidesteps, nothing. Four years ago, Wales couldn't score against Oz when they were down to 13 men. With France down to 14 in the QF this time around, Wales offered nothing in attack. But hey, they were competitive...
Plenty of teams play good attacking rugby but also defend well. NZ are the best attacking side in the world, but their defence doesn't suffer because of it. England have played some lovely rugby in this tournament, but have still only conceded 4 tries in 5 matches. Japan have a lot of amateur players, yet they play sensational attacking rugby and their defence has hardly been a pushover - they gave up only 12 points to World Number One Ireland! The point is that in rugby, attack and defence are fluid - defence can score you tries and attack can stop your opposition from scoring tries. Gareth Davies' try against Oz on an intercept and the 2 tries in the QF against France were all examples of defence scoring points. England keeping possession by playing attacking rugby, thus keeping the ball out of NZ's hands for long periods, is an example of attack stopping points from being scored against them. Ireland became the masters of this 'if they don't have the ball they can't score' strategy back in 2018. In their 6 nations match against Wales, the Welsh only had 30% possession or somesuch, yet scored 3 tries, so Ireland keeping the ball for 70% of the match was a big key to Ireland's win. Playing attacking rugby does not make a team vulnerable, it both scores points and prevents the opposition from having the ball that they need to score their own points.
Yet Gatland's negative, can't-attack, zero creativity, penalties-are-the-primary-way-of-scoring approach seems to have taken a firm hold on the Welsh psyche. I keep hearing Welsh fans comparing the future of their team to Scotland every time someone talks about them playing attacking rugby. Scotland's defence isn't rubbish because they play attacking rugby, Scotland's defence is rubbish because it's rubbish. Would Tipuric or Warburton have been any less of a jackal because they played in a side that played attacking rugby? Would Faletau hit any less hard because he played in a side that played attacking rugby? Would JD2 be any less of a defensive captain if he played in a side that played attacking rugby?
I, for one, hope that Pivac brings back the Wales Way. I read in the last couple of days that Gatland won more than he lost against only 4 of the 10 tier one nations over the last 12 years - Italy, Scotland, France and Argentina. Not exactly the powers of world rugby over that period. Against the other 6 tier one nations he finishes with a losing record. He has won 3 six nations in 10 years (or 4 in 12 if you want to include the Howley years), but he's done precious little else in those 12 long years. Yet phrases like 'punching above our weight' and 'fittest team in the world' are trundled out again and again by Welsh pundits as an excuse for poor play and predictable defeats, because they are intent on lauding the great man for making poor little old Wales competitive...
So you're competitive. You made it. The next step is to become a team that wins things regularly. The game passed Gatland by long ago, it's time for the future.
Sorry, Bushy, not having a go at you, just don't like to see you so negative. You're usually the most cheerful one on these boards. Chin up, old boy!