Sorry Warren Thread

[Rhondda Rudie]

All doubters please post your apologies here.:lol:

 

[munstermuffin]

Lions won against Aus but still doesn't change opinions or views. Stupid thread this 1.

 

[Tony Manx]

I am delighted to apologise to you Sir Warren and your wonderful coaching team................says he through gritted teeth!!!

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Lions won against Aus but still doesn't change opinions or views. Stupid thread this 1.

Well could say the same for certain posts and members posts leading up to the game ... Pot and kettle comes to mind.

 

[Colombia]

The Lions with the depth of 4 nations made hard work of beating a poor Wallaby side who have lost at home to Scotland and Samoa in recent seasons so I'm not sure Warren warrants a massive amount of credit.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Lions won against Aus but still doesn't change opinions or views. Stupid thread this 1.

I have to agree, it's like saying if the Wallabies won, apologise to Robbie for selecting O'Connor at 10.

To be honest, I don't think selecting 10 Welsh changed the result.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

As Gatland himself said, if BOD HAD been playing the result would've been much the same - in reality the match was won by the forwards. I don't think Gatland's calls were bad, but I don't think the match we witnessed proved much either way, except to show that the large Welsh contingent wasn't a hindrance.

 

[admartian]

Clive Warren?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZG7Pg3jcWo

 

[dullonien]

As Gatland himself said, if BOD HAD been playing the result would've been much the same - in reality the match was won by the forwards. I don't think Gatland's calls were bad, but I don't think the match we witnessed proved much either way, except to show that the large Welsh contingent wasn't a hindrance.

Certainly doesn't make the selection/non selection of BOD right or wrong. But I think it makes the scything criticism and general bile directed towards Gatland in those 72 hours wrong (not necessarily talking about this forum here).

As I said previously, I would have better understood the reaction had BOD been in scintillating form, but he wasn't, and tbh hasn't been for a while. A few moments of magic, yes, solid, yes, but not too much more. It just didn't call for that reaction.

The result justified the matchday squad picked in general. BOD would have probably slotted right in there and performed and the Lions still would have won convincingly, because as you say, it was built on forward dominance, and we all know the backline generally looks better behind a pack display like that.

 

[McTallshort]

Well i apologize, said some stupid things about him and should have known better.

 

[Peat]

Tbh, I still think he made quite a hash of the test matches in general, and is lucky that Australia were rather poor and that the injury gods were not on their side in either the 1st or 3rd test. Credit for the Hibbard call - not sure it definitely made a difference, but as the scrum dominance was key, all moves towards it should be saluted. Fair play.

That said, not a lot he could do about the following
- The loosehead curse; Jenkins and Healy's injuries left Corbs, in hindsight, arguably the most important player in the squad, and he missed the second test which we coincidentally lost.
- The centre curse; without taking anything away from Davies, who generally had a good tour, I'm willing to bet that if Robert and Tuilagi had been fit the whole tour and able to beat centre combinations with BOD/each other, Davies would not have been in the starting XV, and certainly not with BOD which did not work.
- Hooker; I think they were somewhat burdened by a poor lineout in front of them, due to rawness and not wishing to give the game away, but none of them showed much interest in throwing well, particularly in POC's absence.
- Scrum-half; again, none of them showed any particular interest in being consistently good.

Australia's disaster list beats that I think, particularly if you include the self-inflicted of O'Connor at 10, but Gatland's plans got derailed in places as well.

Still, a series win is a series win, and credit to him for that.

 

[nickdnz]

My comments leading to the test were that the centre combination would have been one of my last of the possible choices - can't really apologise for that as I haven't changed my view.

I didn't make any remarks about Gatland as a coach - but personally I'd be happy to go with several other options ahead of him for the next AB coach which include Rennie and if they were avalible Schmidt or Cotter. I'd even like to see Wayne Smith get a second run as I think he's been outstanding with Rennie.

On my wishlist next is with Deans now axed - I hope he returns to the Crusaders with Blackadder gone as whatever people say about Deans as coach of Australia, he could certainly win with the Crusaders.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I've got nothing to say sorry about.
I stand by what I said pre-test, as at the time it's what I thought with regards to selection errors. I hold my hands up and say I was wrong (apart from Phillips, I still think murray should've started) but the other selections came good.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

I don't mean the criticism of some of the selections,I agreed with some of those myself.I'm talking about some of the way over the top talk of hoping the Lions lose and ludicrous anti Welsh rhetoric.To my mind every Welsh player except Phillips justified their selection as did everyone else named in the 23.Gatland demonstrated why he's a top international coach and the rest of us showed why we're not.

 

[Big Ewis]

Lions won against Aus but still doesn't change opinions or views. Stupid thread this 1.

.

 

[munstermuffin]

I'm like others here who say Gatland did well and he won but not in spirit I expect from Lions. I like everyone on tour to be treated as new guys and it was wrong for 3rd test that he gave Welsh lads and combinations a free pass regardless of them delivering. So my gripe is he took something special away from Lions and I think player while being delighted feel same to an extent.
As for test we were luck:
Deans was too stubborn to move JOC
If they had their kicker in 1st test we were doomed
If Beale had started test 1 it might have been issue
Aus had Hooper at 12 for alot of 1st test
And in my opinion it was a poor Aus team although you can only beat what in front of you

 

[Gavin]

The players won the series, not Warren.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

The players won the series, not Warren.

This...

I said before the game that the lions might very well win, I didn't say I expected us to lose, nor that I wanted us to lose... but I said I didn't agree with the selection. I actively said it's not bias, but the natural result of being a national coach and knowing certain players better.

The 23 put in an excellent performance becoming of the lions shirt... does that mean that every single selection was correct, in terms of on merit or on form? Does it mean we won because BOD, Croft, Heaslip etc weren't in the squad? No, of course it doesn't mean that. If you think it does, you need a mental health act assessment. There's no knowing for sure that an entirely English, Irish and Scottish 15 wouldn't have put 60 on Australia (I know, they wouldn't have). The lions still should always be picked on merit, so that supporters from all four nations can see their deserving players on show - while most of us are delighted with the series win, many of us are still legitimately disappointed not to have seen much of our star players - Tuilagi for example got less than 10 minutes in tests, and none with Sexton inside him which is what I really wanted to see. So for me it's not just about results, it's about seeing the players we we want to see and deserve to see.

And I just want to echo what Peat said on another thread - I like being able to give opinion on this forum, so being told as we were on that match thread repeatedly to 'Man up and support the lads' is pretty annoying - if we followed that advice every time we disagreed with something, the forum wouldn't exist.

Just to note, I'm aware that some reaction was OTT.. but most of it was the usual healthy skepticism you would hope to find on a forum like this, which I think, should be encouraged

 

[Amiga500]

All doubters please post your apologies here.:lol:

B0ll0cks!

If Lealiifano had stayed on the field for longer than about 40 seconds or Beale had a pair of screw-ins on, it would have been 2-0 in the series. Don't forget how close this tour came to being lost.


- It took him 2 tests to realise the wallabies scrum should be targeted (despite the rest of the world recognising this about 3 years ago) and to instruct his flankers to keep tight and scrummage accordingly (it also showed up the selection of Vunipola at prop and to a lesser extent the selection of Youngs - who, while doing nothing wrong - wasn't the man they needed hooking to dominate field position).
- In 3 tests, he still hasn't realised Mike Phillips has been playing brutal stuff and seemingly no longer capable of operating at this level.
- Where was SOB in the first two tests? 10 mins at the end of the 2nd test and the 2nd most effective Lions carrier over the whole game. Speaks volumes.

His selections of Faletau and Hibbard worked. Fair dues to him for that. Phillips definitely did not. Davies did well but was probably fortunate that the Aussie backs had precious little good ball to work with in the right areas. The lions also won the breakdown battle which I did not expect - perhaps due to Smith's head hit early doors - I don't think he should have been coming back onto the pitch.

 

[munstermuffin]

B0ll0cks!

If Lealiifano had stayed on the field for longer than about 40 seconds or Beale had a pair of screw-ins on, it would have been 2-0 in the series. Don't forget how close this tour came to being lost.


- It took him 2 tests to realise the wallabies scrum should be targeted (despite the rest of the world recognising this about 3 years ago) and to instruct his flankers to keep tight and scrummage accordingly (it also showed up the selection of Vunipola at prop and to a lesser extent the selection of Youngs - who, while doing nothing wrong - wasn't the man they needed hooking to dominate field position).
- In 3 tests, he still hasn't realised Mike Phillips has been playing brutal stuff and seemingly no longer capable of operating at this level.
- Where was SOB in the first two tests? 10 mins at the end of the 2nd test and the 2nd most effective Lions carrier over the whole game. Speaks volumes.

His selections of Faletau and Hibbard worked. Fair dues to him for that. Phillips definitely did not. Davies did well but was probably fortunate that the Aussie backs had precious little good ball to work with in the right areas. The lions also won the breakdown battle which I did not expect - perhaps due to Smith's head hit early doors - I don't think he should have been coming back onto the pitch.

My point exactly as I said just because Gatland won series doesn't mean it was all him and look everyone will still be split but on top of all Amiga said I'd just add it just didn't feel as close knit as other tours (2005 was the same)