Sorry Warren Thread

[Tony Manx]

Does not matter whether the tactics were right or wrong or whether the selection was right or wrong or whether they could/should have lost the first test or whether the coaches or the players should/should not get credit...................

The result is a series win by two to one and that is what will go down in history, and be remembered, and be picked up on by Sky in 4 years time when they totally overhype their coverage of the Lions tour of NZ!!!

That is the way it is and any discussion or argument or expression of views at this time or in the future is now a waste of time!!!

 

[Amiga500]

No,but I tend to have the weakness of believing the evidence of my own eyes.

So why then did the Lions come within a slip of Kurtley Beale's left boot of losing a series when they had (as T3 showed) - significantly the better squad?

Bad management. Bad tactics. Bad selections.

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

So why then did the Lions come within a slip of Kurtley Beale's left boot of losing a series when they had (as T3 showed) - significantly the better squad?

Bad management. Bad tactics. Bad selections.

Strange how there was far less criticism of the selections for the 1st and 2nd tests.Then came the laughable hysteria and anti Welsh bile when the side was announced for the decider.Gats was fully vindicated and then some.He picked two more Welshmen than I would have but to suggest he picked them because they're Welsh is ridiculous.

 

[Amiga500]

Strange how there was far less criticism of the selections for the 1st and 2nd tests.Then came the laughable hysteria and anti Welsh bile when the side was announced for the decider.

Only in your "chip on both shoulders world" was there no problems with the T1/T2 selections.

The hysteria over T3 arose largely because of BOD-gate and Mike Phillips.

Gats was fully vindicated and then some.

No he wasn't. Not even slightly.

Corbisero was a no brainer to go back in. Everyone knew Hibbard and Youngs were horses for courses, each with different strengths and weaknesses which suited different styles.

Lydiate playing ahead of SOB (with Tipuric at 7) was the issue for many. As it happened SOB played out of his skin - in doing so laying down a strong claim to be the best Flanker in the northern hemisphere, maybe even the world - and Lydiate was solid - even carrying a bit.

Faletau in for Heaslip was a fair exchange - most I think were of that opinion.

Phillips should never have been near the team.

Davies did well with what he had, but given he was involved in about 3 plays, it is a bit of a jump to suggest he fully vindicated his selection ahead of BOD.

He picked two more Welshmen than I would have but to suggest he picked them because they're Welsh is ridiculous.

You are trying to put words in my mouth. You can f88k right off with that.

I did not agree with his selection for the 3rd test. Or the 2nd, or the 1st. Not because of where the players were from, but because of the capabilities of the players in question.

 

[psychic duck]

Only in your "chip on both shoulders world" was there no problems with the T1/T2 selections.

The hysteria over T3 arose largely because of BOD-gate and Mike Phillips.

No he wasn't. Not even slightly.

Corbisero was a no brainer to go back in. Everyone knew Hibbard and Youngs were horses for courses, each with different strengths and weaknesses which suited different styles.

Lydiate playing ahead of SOB (with Tipuric at 7) was the issue for many. As it happened SOB played out of his skin - in doing so laying down a strong claim to be the best Flanker in the northern hemisphere, maybe even the world - and Lydiate was solid - even carrying a bit.

Faletau in for Heaslip was a fair exchange - most I think were of that opinion.

Phillips should never have been near the team.

Davies did well with what he had, but given he was involved in about 3 plays, it is a bit of a jump to suggest he fully vindicated his selection ahead of BOD.

BS. There was a load of hysteria about the Welsh in the Lions from many. Not just Phillips as you state.

As it happened, the mistake Gatland made was trying to play Cementball with players like Croft and Heaslip who like to play a wider game, and not going hell for leather to destroy the Wallabies scrum (in the 2nd Test he went in with just 1 real scrummager in the front row).

Phillips was selected partly due to being a Cementball scrum half, and also partly because the alternatives were not so good either. Youngs had a poor 2nd Test, Phillips has shown far more in his career than Murray ever has.

Also no way is SOB "best flanker in the world". He's not even the best flanker in Ireland.

 

[Amiga500]

BS. There was a load of hysteria about the Welsh in the Lions from many. Not just Phillips as you state.

On this forum, most were at pains to state their problem was the ability and form of the player in question, not where they hailed from.

You know it.

Phillips was selected partly due to being a Cementball scrum half, and also partly because the alternatives were not so good either. Youngs had a poor 2nd Test, Phillips has shown far more in his career than Murray ever has.

A cement-mixer would have done a better job than Phillips.

If Gatland was picking on form, Phillips should have been nowhere near the team. If Gatland was picking on combinations, Phillips should have been nowhere near the team.

Why was he picked?

Also no way is SOB "best flanker in the world". He's not even the best flanker in Ireland.

He is probably the best 6 in Europe. Has a ERC player of the year (at 6) and a couple of HECs in his back pocket to back that up.

Has been shoehorned into 7 on account of Ferris. Then for reasons unknown (Declan Kidney I'm looking at you), forced to stay there to accommodate faux-hardman O'Mahony.

He was more effective on Sat past at 7 than the supposed best 7 in the NH Warburton.

Can more than do a job at 8. On for 15 minutes in T2 and in that time carried more than any other forward, and was the 2nd best carrier in the team. In 15 minutes.


Who, would you suggest, is better? (Both in Ireland and in Europe.)

 

[j'nuh]

I don't know what people were expecting? Australia are a top 3 team and have some sublime players. Of course there were going to be matches which came down to the wire, were we expecting three comfortable wins? Yes, we were a slipped kick away from losing the first test. But if you play ifs, then what if Corbs hadn't gotten injured in the second test, or Davies made that tackle and stopped the try being scored? Talking about goal kicking in the first test, well what if Halfpenny nailed those two kicks he missed in the second test?

Yes, we were outperformed in running around the field. We still did our basics better than Australia over the course of three matches. A thoroughly deserved tour win imo.

And to downplay blowing a top 3 team out by 25 points?

As it happened SOB played out of his skin - in doing so laying down a strong claim to be the best Flanker in the northern hemisphere, maybe even the world
He is probably the best 6 in Europe. Has a ERC player of the year (at 6) and a couple of HECs in his back pocket to back that up.

SO'B is in fact my favourite current Irish player. But best in the NH? Many can lay down that claim. Best in the world? Pure madness.

 

[psychic duck]

On this forum, most were at pains to state their problem was the ability and form of the player in question, not where they hailed from.

:lol: Really ...

I suggest you look back and stop being a revisionist.

A cement-mixer would have done a better job than Phillips.

If Gatland was picking on form, Phillips should have been nowhere near the team. If Gatland was picking on combinations, Phillips should have been nowhere near the team.

Why was he picked?

Ugh ... I just told you. Because firstly the alternatives were not on particularly special form and Youngs wasn't great in his chance in the 2nd, and secondly Phillips is a Cementball style scrum half who has shown he is more capable than Murray. That's why he was picked.

Not saying it worked out well, but that's why he as picked.

 

[dullonien]

So why then did the Lions come within a slip of Kurtley Beale's left boot of losing a series when they had (as T3 showed) - significantly the better squad?

They weren't a slip away of losing the series, as I keep saying. They were a missed kick away from winning the series in the second test, they were a slip away from losing the first test only.

 

[SelimNiai]

Im looking at this thread and I don't know about others but this has just become boring. It's not a thread where people are going to agree or convert people so as a result its going round in circles over the same areas

 

[Tony Manx]

Im looking at this thread and I don't know about others but this has just become boring. It's not a thread where people are going to agree or convert people so as a result its going round in circles over the same areas

Think I said that in a different way so I must agree with you!!

 

[Peat]

Nevermind Beale slipping - if Lealiifano hadn't been knocked out in the first minute, a lot of those missed kicks would have gone over which, while changing the momentum of the game and the actions of the players meaning we cannot be exactly sure, would have quite possibly secured them victory long before Beale's prat fall.

Also, until Fez is fit and firing, he can't be regarded as better than O'Brien, whose all round play has come on hugely. Discipline issues aside, I would struggle to argue with Amiga's assertion. He can point to more recent top class performances on the SH's patch than any other NH player imo. I could see why O'Brien wasn't picked given the very conservative nature of the game plan. Third test would suggest this was a mistake.

And I'm also in the camp that thought Australia were relatively easy meat. They did not believe in their coach, they had big injury issues, they had discipline issues, they had some highly unpopular team members, their class was hamstrung and there was always a possibility of an uber-strong front row simply dismantling them regardless of everything else. Which happened.

The selection and tactics were spot on,hence the result.Are you a member of The Flat Earth Society by any chance?

I do not believe this for one moment. If nothing else, the changes means selection and tactics cannot have been spot on for all three tests.

 

[Feicarsinn]

That's the problem with you Irish. Far too sentimental. I would have picked BOD too personally, but no way was he entitled to selection based on being a legend (he hardly did much in the first 2 tests anyway). And also no way was the selection as important as made out and that it would have single handedly lost the game. The Irish can't take the dropping of their established players. Kidney didn't have the guts to get rid of ROG after RWC 2011 when he should have moved on, and only 2 years later and an awful performance against Scotland did he come to his senses. Unbelievably there was still seen as a controversial dropping and caused a storm in the Irish media and some were upset at his "treatment" with his wife moaning he didn't get a nice send off.At least Gatland has the guts to make big calls. He moved on from Stephen Jones post 2011 RWC, backed Warburton and ditched Martyn Williams, those are two of our best servants over the past decade. If this was Ireland they would have kept them until they decided to retire, or 2 years after it became obvious it was time to move on, and there would have still been an outrage when dropped. Gatland doesn't believe in players being entitled to places like the Irish.

Oh, thanks for that. It must be like the way ALL Welsh people are obsessed with GIF and pedantry.

 

[Joseph14]

My issue was a national coach being selected as head coach for the lions. Bias was always going to play a part.

That's not Gatland's fault. It's not as if he was going to turn the chance to coach the Lions down was it!?

Facing the worst test side the Lions have played for decades contributed more to the series win than almost anything else if we are being brutally honest.

I think there is enough depth in Britain and Ireland to have fielded a completely different 15 to the side that started the third test and won!

 

[Amiga500]

My issue was a national coach being selected as head coach for the lions.

I do also have an issue with that - it puts the coach in a compromised position and is unfair on both the coach and the players.

IMO - it should either be a club coach, a retiring national coach or a coach with no conflict of interest with regards the home nations national teams.

 

[munstermuffin]

:lol: Really ...

I suggest you look back and stop being a revisionist.



Ugh ... I just told you. Because firstly the alternatives were not on particularly special form and Youngs wasn't great in his chance in the 2nd, and secondly Phillips is a Cementball style scrum half who has shown he is more capable than Murray. That's why he was picked.

Not saying it worked out well, but that's why he as picked.

Strongly disagree with last bit. Murray showed in 2nd test he was capable and to be honest rammed in down Gatlands throat with a 3rd test to back it up. And Youngs and Murray both did fine and grew in confidence as tour went on while Phillips lived off Gatlands preference and got free pass for 3rd test. Murray is a similar type player to Phillips and was in better form so there should be no argument there it was simply Gatland knew Phillips better from Welsh camp and was bias

 

[psychic duck]

Strongly disagree with last bit. Murray showed in 2nd test he was capable and to be honest rammed in down Gatlands throat with a 3rd test to back it up. And Youngs and Murray both did fine and grew in confidence as tour went on while Phillips lived off Gatlands preference and got free pass for 3rd test. Murray is a similar type player to Phillips and was in better form so there should be no argument there it was simply Gatland knew Phillips better from Welsh camp and was bias

Munstermuffin. Gatland has always liked Phillips. Right from the start in 2008 he immediately preferred him to Dwayne Peel who was first choice 2004-2007. As this isn't really the best era for scrum halves in the Britain and Ireland, it is no surprise he picked a player who he has always liked and had some success in previous big matches such as Lions 2009 and the RWC (which he did well in despite consistently playing crap for the Ospreys).

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

On this forum, most were at pains to state their problem was the ability and form of the player in question, not where they hailed from.

You know it.



A cement-mixer would have done a better job than Phillips.

If Gatland was picking on form, Phillips should have been nowhere near the team. If Gatland was picking on combinations, Phillips should have been nowhere near the team.

Why was he picked?



He is probably the best 6 in Europe. Has a ERC player of the year (at 6) and a couple of HECs in his back pocket to back that up.

Has been shoehorned into 7 on account of Ferris. Then for reasons unknown (Declan Kidney I'm looking at you), forced to stay there to accommodate faux-hardman O'Mahony.

He was more effective on Sat past at 7 than the supposed best 7 in the NH Warburton.

Can more than do a job at 8. On for 15 minutes in T2 and in that time carried more than any other forward, and was the 2nd best carrier in the team. In 15 minutes.


Who, would you suggest, is better? (Both in Ireland and in Europe.)

So let me get this straight.He changed a team that lost by 1 point,won by 25 points and yet picked the wrong team.LOL

 

[Draggs]

OK all, this thread is pretty pointless. As others have said, no opinions can be changed, and we are just repeating ourselves. Locking this is silly as you are all mostly adults, so just leave it where it is. If there is new material worth discussing, than please do.

 

[Amiga500]

So let me get this straight.He changed a team that lost by 1 point,won by 25 points and yet picked the wrong team.LOL

The problems most have with Gatland is not confined to merely the changes from T2 to T3.

Perhaps you are assuming that is all folks are arguing about?