Gatland signs Super Rugby deal with Chiefs

[Umaga's Witness]

It will definitely be interesting at the chiefs who had the least planned attack of all sr teams under Rennie, and continued a bit of that since. It's not quite the same now of course without cruden , Lowe, and ngatai.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

It will definitely be interesting at the chiefs who had the least planned attack of all sr teams under Rennie, and continued a bit of that since. It's not quite the same now of course without cruden , Lowe, and ngatai.

He's had the same around the corner framework everywhere he's coached. Which includes Waikato.

What do you mean by "aroind the coiner"? Is this a phrase I don't know, or is it descriptive of the coaching style?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Also Sexton and Farrell decided to do their own thing in the third test such was their bemusement and disapproval at Howler's coaching, tactics and instructions. The SOB comments post tour pretty much confirmed this..

Ahh that's an alternative explanation to that turn of events.

I wouldn't be surprised, if gatland was appointed head coach, if nzrugby instead of gatland himself appointed the assistants

 

[TRF_Olyy]

On top of that, if you look at the last lions tour they increased their attack complexity with each game. and he actually let the players dictate the attack, which is exactly what suits nz. it actually suited sexton and Farrell and Davies and Williams too

"Let"

 

[bushytop]

He obviously gets a lot of hate... particularly from the English, Irish and Scottish (kinda see why from the Scots... although I feel his selections have ultimately been vindicated) but as a Welsh man I'd have him coach us until he passes (god rest his soul)... hell I'd be in favour of us renaming Wales as 'Gatland'!

It would fit better with the other British nation names Eng'land', Ire'land' and Scot'land'... and Gat'land' would also be a call out to our infamous love of... erm... Gats (okay I'm reaching now but you get my drift). Also the name 'Wales' (or Way-yuls!) came from an Anglo-Saxon term to name us foreigners, even though they were the 'actual' foreigners. So would be happy to ditch our current monicker.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Gats has

On top of that, if you look at the last lions tour they increased their attack complexity with each game. and he actually let the players dictate the attack, which is exactly what suits nz. it actually suited sexton and Farrell and Davies and Williams too

You're conveniently forgetting that he didn't start Sexton in the first test and hadn't considered Farrell as a 12 either when it was the obvious choice to praise him here.

Gatland is a great motivator, an incredible opportunist, usually a good selector but compared to his peers at international level he's a fairly mediocre tactician. It still is enough to make him a great international coach though.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Gats has

You're conveniently forgetting that he didn't start Sexton in the first test and hadn't considered Farrell as a 12 either when it was the obvious choice to praise him here.

Gatland is a great motivator, an incredible opportunist, usually a good selector but compared to his peers at international level he's a fairly mediocre tactician. It still is enough to make him a great international coach though.

The thing I noticed at the time, as someone not biased about which players should be selected, is that he picked the form players as much as possible, apart from Wyn Jones who was awful in every game he played (granted he looked a bit better against a 7 man forward pack). The amount of nonsense people here were talking regarding selections, completely contradicting what I was seeing in front of my eyes, was phenomenal. Almost everyone was saying Davies shouldn't be selected, for instance, but he was easily the best lions player of the tour. Some of those same people are starting to recognise him as a good player now, but certainly not then. Point being you are saying he should have known to play sexton with Farrell at 12 from the start, but the cherry picking you are accusing me of, which I have no incentive to do by the way, can be thrown right back at you, because there were probably other selection decisions he made that proved better than the ones you were (probably) suggesting at the time, eg I think you were one that didn't want Davies?

Probably also worth mentioning that lots of people thought Farrell at 12 was obvious and a lot of the same people now are advocating against that, because some games were lost with him at 12. So "obvious at the time" probably isn't the best indicator as people tend to change their minds on what's obvious based on results of the entire team rather than how the individual player performs.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Gatland is a great motivator, an incredible opportunist, usually a good selector but compared to his peers at international level he's a fairly mediocre tactician. It still is enough to make him a great international coach though.

yeah, I think he will add value as an all blacks coach if he has good assistants. I think he is also good at getting his team to play accurately and composed. What did you mean by "opportunist"?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The thing I noticed at the time, as someone not biased about which players should be selected, is that he picked the form players as much as possible, apart from Wyn Jones who was awful in every game he played (granted he looked a bit better against a 7 man forward pack). The amount of nonsense people here were talking regarding selections, completely contradicting what I was seeing in front of my eyes, was phenomenal. Almost everyone was saying Davies shouldn't be selected, for instance, but he was easily the best lions player of the tour. Some of those same people are starting to recognise him as a good player now, but certainly not then. Point being you are saying he should have known to play sexton with Farrell at 12 from the start, but the cherry picking you are accusing me of, which I have no incentive to do by the way, can be thrown right back at you, because there were probably other selection decisions he made that proved better than the ones you were (probably) suggesting at the time, eg I think you were one that didn't want Davies?

Probably also worth mentioning that lots of people thought Farrell at 12 was obvious and a lot of the same people now are advocating against that, because some games were lost with him at 12. So "obvious at the time" probably isn't the best indicator as people tend to change their minds on what's obvious based on results of the entire team rather than how the individual player performs.

I wouldn't be all that biased as to who gets selected now, I'd say about half of my negative reps on these boards (not that I care about that just an example) are from my posts where I call the Lions a relic and say a successful tour to me is one where no Leinster players get selected and ruin a portion of their careers, unfortunately that didn't happen last time out, Jack McGrath and Sean O'Brien joined Cian Healy from 2013 and Luke Fitzgerald from 2009 as guys who weren't the same again for at least four years after one of these bogus tours.

Yeah I didn't want Davies, he was playing outside Ben Te'o and hadn't really done a thing of note apart from showing his inability to pass a rugby ball before Sexton and Farrell let him loose. I'm pretty sure at the time I acknowledged he was played well in the first test but I wanted two centres to pass the ball, it probably would have been somewhat justified but for Sonny Bill's series losing moment. I also don't think the selection of Davies really helps rebut the point that Gatland isn't a good stack minded coach, Davies is an absolutely fantastic bulldozer but with literally no nuance to his game. A further example of this was him picking Jared Payne of all people he left Ringrose go to Japan and he has more or less been the best 13 in the world for since that tour finished bar struggling in the 6 nations this year which was endemic in the whole Irish squad and Ringer was also one of the best performing Irish players in a struggling team in 2017 as well as Leinster's best player in their unsuccessful knockout runs that year, any coach who felt like they could coach that Lions squad to be an attacking force takes Ringrose on that tour.

yeah, I think he will add value as an all blacks coach if he has good assistants. I think he is also good at getting his team to play accurately and composed. What did you mean by "opportunist"?

I mean that when Gatland has a sniff at success he takes it, basically the opposite of choking, it's a fantastic trait to have.

 

[bushytop]

I wouldn't be all that biased as to who gets selected now, I'd say about half ofy negative reps on these boards (not that I care about that just an example) are from my posts where I call the Lions a relic and say a successful tour to me is one where now Leinster players get selected and ruin a portion of their careers, unfortunately that didn't happen last time out, Jack McGrath and Sean O'Brien joined Cian Healy from 2013 and Luke Fitzgerald from 2009 as guys who weren't the same again for at least four years after one of these bogus tours.

Yeah I didn't want Davies, he was playing outside Ben Te'o and hadn't really done a thing of note apart from showing his inability to pass a rugby ball before Sexton and Farrell let him loose. I'm pretty sure at the time I acknowledged he was playing well but I wanted two centres to pass the ball. I also don't think the selection of Davies really helps rebut the point that Gatland isn't a good stack minded coach, Davies is an absolutely fantastic bulldozer but with literally no nuance to his game. A further example of this was him picking Jared Payne of all people he left Ringrose go to Japan and he has more or less been the best 13 in the world for since that tour finished bar struggling in the 6 nations this year which was endemic in the whole Irish squad and Ringer was also one of the best performing Irish players in a struggling team in 2017 as well as Leinster's best player in their unsuccessful knockout runs that year, any coach who felt like they could coach that Lions squad to be an attacking force takes Ringrose on that tour.

I mean that when Gatland has a sniff at success he takes it, basically the opposite of choking, it's a fantastic trait to have.

It's not 'only' Leinster' players who come back from a Lions tour diminished you know... and if your logic is correct would you really have wanted your beloved Garry's career ruined by this relic, doubt it. Although you do seem disappointed he wasn't selected.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I wouldn't be all that biased as to who gets selected now, I'd say about half of my negative reps on these boards (not that I care about that just an example) are from my posts where I call the Lions a relic and say a successful tour to me is one where no Leinster players get selected and ruin a portion of their careers, unfortunately that didn't happen last time out, Jack McGrath and Sean O'Brien joined Cian Healy from 2013 and Luke Fitzgerald from 2009 as guys who weren't the same again for at least four years after one of these bogus tours.

Yeah I didn't want Davies, he was playing outside Ben Te'o and hadn't really done a thing of note apart from showing his inability to pass a rugby ball before Sexton and Farrell let him loose. I'm pretty sure at the time I acknowledged he was played well in the first test but I wanted two centres to pass the ball, it probably would have been somewhat justified but for Sonny Bill's series losing moment. I also don't think the selection of Davies really helps rebut the point that Gatland isn't a good stack minded coach, Davies is an absolutely fantastic bulldozer but with literally no nuance to his game. A further example of this was him picking Jared Payne of all people he left Ringrose go to Japan and he has more or less been the best 13 in the world for since that tour finished bar struggling in the 6 nations this year which was endemic in the whole Irish squad and Ringer was also one of the best performing Irish players in a struggling team in 2017 as well as Leinster's best player in their unsuccessful knockout runs that year, any coach who felt like they could coach that Lions squad to be an attacking force takes Ringrose on that tour.

I mean that when Gatland has a sniff at success he takes it, basically the opposite of choking, it's a fantastic trait to have.

I watched all of the games on the tour and Davies was one of the standout players in every one he played in. He did a lot of note. Mostly on defence but that was the key to the lions. I didn't really know much about him beforehand so I could only suspect other people had come in with preconceived bias to not recognise how good he was. Ok so Ringrose wasn't there, maybe he would have played better, I don't know.

 

[big ginger 8]

What do you mean by "aroind the coiner"? Is this a phrase I don't know, or is it descriptive of the coaching style?

Maybe it's called something else in NZ but it's a pretty basic framework which is pretty much used by every team at every level to some degree but it is noticeable that some teams rely on it a lot more than others such as those coached by Gatland. It has some negative connotations due to it and 'Warrenball' being used interchangeably but it doesn't necessarily have to be a boring style of play even if does leave less room for innovation. I do think Gatland has moved somewhat away from Warrenball (you couldn't really make it work in modern rugby without exceptional luck in the player's available to you) but still utilises an around the corner style as his starting point.

Ironically from a quick google search the best video I could find to demonstrate it in action is actually by Australia against Gatland's Lions.


Basically the ruck is the 'corner' and you want your players coming 'around' it, playing the same way until they hit the sideline and have to comeback again. Usually you want to do it predominantly by hitting close to the ruck. At a basic level the idea is that you suck in the other teams players close to the ruck and eventually on one of the occasions that you reach the sideline they've got too many players close to the ruck leaving you with oodles of space to attack and not very many players to defend it. Alternatively the players who are there to defend it are the slower less fit players who are easy to attack. This process can take a while. Potentially you also programme the other team to automatically push round the corner to defend the next wave leaving you with a lovely blindside to attack. It depends on how rigid the system is as to how often you are allowed spread the ball or attack the blindside. This is because while they may usually be the knockout blows of the system they also tend to take you away from your pack and leave you with a better chance of losing possession.

As I say it's more a framework than anything and it can be changed around somewhat by different teams but it probably is slightly more basic and conservative than other more modern styles. Still just like the blitz defence, high standards of physical fitness and a high intensity it is absolutely a staple of Gatland coached teams.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Maybe it's called something else in NZ but it's a pretty basic framework which is pretty much used by every team at every level to some degree but it is noticeable that some teams rely on it a lot more than others such as those coached by Gatland. It has some negative connotations due to it and 'Warrenball' being used interchangeably but it doesn't necessarily have to be a boring style of play even if does leave less room for innovation. I do think Gatland has moved somewhat away from Warrenball (you couldn't really make it work in modern rugby without exceptional luck in the player's available to you) but still utilises an around the corner style as his starting point.

Ironically from a quick google search the best video I could find to demonstrate it in action is actually by Australia against Gatland's Lions.


Basically the ruck is the 'corner' and you want your players coming 'around' it, playing the same way until they hit the sideline and have to comeback again. Usually you want to do it predominantly by hitting close to the ruck. At a basic level the idea is that you suck in the other teams players close to the ruck and eventually on one of the occasions that you reach the sideline they've got too many players close to the ruck leaving you with oodles of space to attack and not very many players to defend it. Alternatively the players who are there to defend it are the slower less fit players who are easy to attack. This process can take a while. Potentially you also programme the other team to automatically push round the corner to defend the next wave leaving you with a lovely blindside to attack. It depends on how rigid the system is as to how often you are allowed spread the ball or attack the blindside. This is because while they may usually be the knockout blows of the system they also tend to take you away from your pack and leave you with a better chance of losing possession.

As I say it's more a framework than anything and it can be changed around somewhat by different teams but it probably is slightly more basic and conservative than other more modern styles. Still just like the blitz defence, high standards of physical fitness and a high intensity it is absolutely a staple of Gatland coached teams.

Ahh, ok that's what that's called. Thanks for the detailed explanation .

 

[Larksea]

back when Cooper was appointed chiefs coach it always felt like it was a stopgap till Gatland was free to come home. Cooper previously left the Hurricanes coaching job saying the travel and time away from family coaching super rugby was more than he liked and it didn't make sense for him to come in and be a long time coach at the chiefs. Now he's left sighting the same reasons. But it seems like this was always the plan...

Then there is the All Black equation. Gatland is likely to apply for the All Blacks job. But if the All Blacks win the WC this year you have to say that Foster would be likely to get the job if he applies, how do you say no to a WC winning current coach? Then what becomes of Gatland? Is Gatland's ego too big to take on an assistant coach role? Is he just coming back to the chiefs to be close to home for a shift into the AB's. It seemed like Dave Rennie wasn't keen on coming in as an assistant. He would surely have been offered an assistant role for the All Blacks.

The way the All Blacks have been coached since Henry took over has been the world benchmark IMO. Sure Henry was the head coach and then Hansen but it seems like the assistants like Hansen, smith and now Foster have as much maybe more input into the side coaching than the head coaches. it seems like the natural progression is for Foster to take over and Gatland or Robinson to come in as an assistant. That system of progression worked wonders with Hansen coming in. But my gut tells me Gatlands EGO is too big to take an assistant role to Foster, does he understand that getting the keys to the best team in the world requires he puts in some time as an assistant to get the lay of the land first? I doubt foster will go more than 1 cycle if he gets the job. But I also think Foster is selfless enough that he would let Gat's come in as head and keep an assistant role. Now I'm just rambling....

But there is a lot on Foster this year. in the season before a WC innovation takes a back seat a bit, attack in particular. But for WC year innovation and a new winning gameplan is a must and for sure a big chunk of that responsibility falls squarely on Ian Foster. The team will need to have new tactics and playstyle through the pool phases, have winning recipes for the tough sides we meet on the way then ultimately a plan for the final which is always a game unlike any other. Like the rulebook goes out the window. All knowing that the All Blacks are the most analysed team in the world and any team that comes up against them will give it everything and likely push the boundaries and laws doing it.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

back when Cooper was appointed chiefs coach it always felt like it was a stopgap till Gatland was free to come home. Cooper previously left the Hurricanes coaching job saying the travel and time away from family coaching super rugby was more than he liked and it didn't make sense for him to come in and be a long time coach at the chiefs. Now he's left sighting the same reasons. But it seems like this was always the plan...

Then there is the All Black equation. Gatland is likely to apply for the All Blacks job. But if the All Blacks win the WC this year you have to say that Foster would be likely to get the job if he applies, how do you say no to a WC winning current coach? Then what becomes of Gatland? Is Gatland's ego too big to take on an assistant coach role? Is he just coming back to the chiefs to be close to home for a shift into the AB's. It seemed like Dave Rennie wasn't keen on coming in as an assistant. He would surely have been offered an assistant role for the All Blacks.

The way the All Blacks have been coached since Henry took over has been the world benchmark IMO. Sure Henry was the head coach and then Hansen but it seems like the assistants like Hansen, smith and now Foster have as much maybe more input into the side coaching than the head coaches. it seems like the natural progression is for Foster to take over and Gatland or Robinson to come in as an assistant. That system of progression worked wonders with Hansen coming in. But my gut tells me Gatlands EGO is too big to take an assistant role to Foster, does he understand that getting the keys to the best team in the world requires he puts in some time as an assistant to get the lay of the land first? I doubt foster will go more than 1 cycle if he gets the job. But I also think Foster is selfless enough that he would let Gat's come in as head and keep an assistant role. Now I'm just rambling....

But there is a lot on Foster this year. in the season before a WC innovation takes a back seat a bit, attack in particular. But for WC year innovation and a new winning gameplan is a must and for sure a big chunk of that responsibility falls squarely on Ian Foster. The team will need to have new tactics and playstyle through the pool phases, have winning recipes for the tough sides we meet on the way then ultimately a plan for the final which is always a game unlike any other. Like the rulebook goes out the window. All knowing that the All Blacks are the most analysed team in the world and any team that comes up against them will give it everything and likely push the boundaries and laws doing it.

Its a tough decision to be an assistant, if you want the head role, because if you do well in the assistant role the team will be successful and the head role wont come up for grabs.

I'm not sure about rennie, can you elaborate on why you think he would have been offered an assistants role? I read somewhere, and I don't know if it was just speculation, that rennie was out of favour with the all blacks coaches because he didn't always do what they wanted of him , e.g. in terms of positùnal selections at the chiefs.

I should be saying this in the other thread..

 

[Carlito]

Speaking of Rennie the rumours are he's being chased by the Aussies as Tahs coach with Gibson exit and possibly also replace Cheika as the national coach...

Have my reservations about Gatland . I think Wales have always been a strong rugby nation despite him and not because of anything much Gatland has done.... worries me Gatland coming back to be honest...

would prefer Rennie coached the ABs rather than Gatland... all day everyday...

 

[Larksea]

I actually agree a bit that Gatland isn't right for the AB's.
Gatland actually coached me a bit when i was playing school rugby I know its pretty meaningless now but IMO I dont see him fitting well into the environment the AB's have now which is always team first and EGO's are left at the door. It's very very much a collaboration. A team effort. I feel like if Gatland came in he would change the culture too much. You can also see how he interacts with the press as well its very different to what the AB environment has been fostering.

 

[JonoCymru]

I actually agree a bit that Gatland isn't right for the AB's.
Gatland actually coached me a bit when i was playing school rugby I know its pretty meaningless now but IMO I dont see him fitting well into the environment the AB's have now which is always team first and EGO's are left at the door. It's very very much a collaboration. A team effort. I feel like if Gatland came in he would change the culture too much. You can also see how he interacts with the press as well its very different to what the AB environment has been fostering.

Interesting. I'd say the Wales ethos is similar, though. It's very much a team effort, a collaboration and there are no egos or rather, they're left at the door as you say. Therefore I can't see how Gatland coaching the AB's would affect the NZ environment negatively.

Style of play wise though, maybe. NZ, high standard quality rugby whereas Gats does love a bit of crashball. He'd have a better pool of players to choose from though in NZ and would probably adapt accordingly and play a more expansive game.