Is Warren Gatland Simply a Lucky Coach?

[Leonormous Boozer]

What it is is circular reasoning. You cannot say they couldn't hypothetically have coached the Lions better than Gatland because they haven't coached the Lions. That is the logic of the WRU "This player can't be better than the incumbent because the incumbent has played for Wales and this other guy hasn't!" It's also the catch 22 in jobs where to get a job you need experience and to get that experience, you need the job. You need to judge their coaching credentials outside the Lions as it's the only thing you can compare and by pretty much every measure, Jones has had more success than Gatland. How many records and serious achievements are held by Gatlands Wales? 6N successes yes, probably one of the most successful 6N coaches. Outside that, it's actually extremely poor. Bearing in mind as well that Wales success coincided with Ireland, England and France all playing shockingly. Since all these teams have upped their games, Wales has gone backwards again. Wales has never shown the ability to consistently beat other strong teams, essentially the ultimate flat track bullies utilising the ultimate flat track bully tactics of bludgeoning their way to victory. Wales peak coincided with other nations troughs, now other nations are reaching peaks again, Wales can't compete. The players haven't got worse, they simply can't bully their way to victory any more.

Gatland is better than two men who have utterly outclassed Gats in the last 4 and 2 years when they have been in direct competition because NZers can't admit they were a wee bit shite and Welsh rugby > A 23 created and coached by God himself designed specifically to beat Wales.

 

[munstermuffin]

Anyone who has read my post will know I've slated Schmidt more than probably anyone on this site. And I will do so again no doubt. But to be honest the guy is a coaching genius in terms of what he did with so many teams is mad. Like with Leinster - Schmidt was awful (so we thought) for first few games then well he has produced history (as tough as it is for a Munster man to say that). Same with Ireland. Poor start well few games and then takes off.
For Schmidt I would say would he have enough time as he needs to take few games to get guys up to his plan but other side is this is best of the best so they should be much faster getting up to level.
But the biggest credit I will give Schmidt is he is adaptable. He can think and change plans (I might think it's still kind of poor style) but he has changed plans.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

(6.66% Win Record as Welsh Boss).

That is so much worse than I imagined

 

[Penne Rara]

Anyone who has read my post will know I've slated Schmidt more than probably anyone on this site. And I will do so again no doubt. But to be honest the guy is a coaching genius in terms of what he did with so many teams is mad. Like with Leinster - Schmidt was awful (so we thought) for first few games then well he has produced history (as tough as it is for a Munster man to say that). Same with Ireland. Poor start well few games and then takes off.
For Schmidt I would say would he have enough time as he needs to take few games to get guys up to his plan but other side is this is best of the best so they should be much faster getting up to level.
But the biggest credit I will give Schmidt is he is adaptable. He can think and change plans (I might think it's still kind of poor style) but he has changed plans.

Yup, Schmidt plays to his strengths and in accordance with the depth he's got, which is why I rate him more than Gatland to become the next ABs coach, providing that he wants to go back to New Zealand. I don't know him much, but after reading the media and watching Ireland play, he seems to be very clever, calm and composed, and perfectly suits the kiwi philosophy in the wake of Hansen.
But I fear he'll need to coach a SR team first, that's the way it is in NZ, or maybe the fastest route is to become an assistant coach within the ABs staff?

 

[munstermuffin]

Yup, Schmidt plays to his strengths and in accordance with the depth he's got, which is why I rate him more than Gatland to become the next ABs coach, providing that he wants to go back to New Zealand. I don't know him much, but after reading the media and watching Ireland play, he seems to be very clever, calm and composed, and perfectly suits the kiwi philosophy in the wake of Hansen.
But I fear he'll need to coach a SR team first, that's the way it is in NZ, or maybe the fastest route is to become an assistant coach within the ABs staff?

To be honest he doesn't get flustered and is calm which I think comes from his history as a teacher.
I think he will go back to NZ after next RWC. Was probably close to it this time and somehow Ireland managed to convince him to stay. But he was close to it last summer. I think in a way the last RWC can be deemed a failure in some ways by Ireland and Schmidt wants to rectify that which is why he has put a conscious effort in lately to righting that wrong and building depth. Which is another example:
At RWC Schmidt built a decent 23/24 but after that a gap was there and he took eye off ball. But he was clued in to accept that was the issue and instead of being stubborn has said "I won't fall for that again".
If you look closely at his camps and US tour he's called in alot of different guys who might be involved in 2019 and well has developed a big pool who all seem to know the setup. Guys like James Ryan etc aren't ready now for big internationals but in 2019 they will be and now they know the regime too.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Man I wish Declan Kidney got the win all them years ago when we were unlucky in 2012. (The day Tony Buckley had a stormer). .

I feel for you... seriously, I was at a mates place up in Angel in London have drinks and a barby and we had completely forgotten about the Irish game as we were catching up on old times and then my phone rang and it was my Irish mate Karl Higgins from Clairmorris in mayo, and he says, "Are you watching the telly?"
I said no, why?"
He said it's 20 minutes into the game and Ireland are 19-nil up against the AB's, I laughed at the scallywag because he's often up to mischief, and scoffed at the suggestion, so he says, "Turn the telly on you Kiwi plonker, hurry up, so I asked my mate Wozza to turn on his telly and he did and we stood there open mouthed for a few seconds, stunned by the result and the emerald whirlwind in action, and we exploded into action, kids and wives and sheilas OUT, beer and snacks in, crank up the volume and I said into the phone, "Thanks mate, appreciate the heads up, gotta go now, important work to attend to."
He laughed.
We sat down and watched the game unfold. Possibly the greatest game of rugby ever, certainly one of them.
I watched it and I still don't know how we got out if that one.
We definitely didn't deserve it.
Irelands win in Chicago was overdue and it was celebrated in good style by Kiwis everywhere.
Ireland are a serious top drawer top quality rugby country.
Thanks for reminding me about that game.
It was a cliff hanger. On the phone afterwards to a slightly downcast Higgy, I said, "Mate, I had a breakdown, a cardiac arrest and an orgasm all in about three minutes at the end there."
Then I apologised for daylight robbery.

 

[profitius]

Yup, Schmidt plays to his strengths and in accordance with the depth he's got, which is why I rate him more than Gatland to become the next ABs coach, providing that he wants to go back to New Zealand. I don't know him much, but after reading the media and watching Ireland play, he seems to be very clever, calm and composed, and perfectly suits the kiwi philosophy in the wake of Hansen.
But I fear he'll need to coach a SR team first, that's the way it is in NZ, or maybe the fastest route is to become an assistant coach within the ABs staff?

I think he is an excellent coach and goes into great detail but as a head coach I think he misses the big picture. Ireland are a very robotic team under Schmidt and while people will applaud the consistency, I read an Oscar Wilde quote this week that said - "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.". That sums up Schmidt imo. Ireland are predictable, play a defensive game, the players are discouraged from offloading the ball and every game is a war of attrition. I'm not sure the New Zealand public would be too impressed with that so he would have to prove himself in Super rugby first.


The unimaginative style has turned Robbie Henshaw into a bosh merchant. Ireland struggle to score tries even while dominate possession and territory because the whole plan is to keep the ball and go from ruck to ruck. Thats fine when you're playing weaker sides like Italy but the top teams find it easy to stop that. People will point to the 5 tries in Chicago but how many did Ireland score the next week? Zero.


I also think that because Schmidt is a nice guy and Gatland has a spikey personality, it clouds peoples judgement.

 

[mania]

What it is is circular reasoning.

not i , the others are doing circular reasoning.
gatland drew the series against the toughest team in the world; fact.
schmidt and eJones havent coached lions ; fact.
ergo - gatland is a great coach

 

[mania]

Gatland also benefited from a Lancaster led England at the last World Cup. Had Jones been in charge at the point then Wales would have most certainly gone out at the group stage.

...if only....

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

not i , the others are doing circular reasoning.
gatland drew the series against the toughest team in the world; fact.
schmidt and eJones havent coached lions ; fact.
ergo - gatland is a great coach

Please tell me this is a joke because you honestly can't have this poor an understanding of how reasoning works... Do you even know what circular reasoning is? You are saying other coached couldn't have hypothetically done better than Gatland because Gatland was the one who did it... Let me illustrate the degree of how ridiculous that comment is, I go out and run 100m at a local park and then say Usain Bolt could not hypothetically beat me because he hasn't run 100m in my local park. Someone then points out Usain Bolt has run 100m plenty of times and each time much faster than me but I stick my fingers in my ears and say he didn't do it at my local park therefore there is no reason to believe he is better than me. That is literally the level of idiocy in your reasoning.

Jones and Schmidt have proven credentials in coaching a variety of teams to greater success than Gatland but you dismiss their chances because they haven't coached a specific team. Both Schmidt and Jones have beaten all 3 SH teams more than Gatland has and yet you say neither of them could beat 2 of the SH teams more successfully than Gatland. Both of Gatlands tours have been far from convincing and literally both could have been lost with a final penalty kick in 1 game. Had the Aussie not slipped on his penalty and the Kiwis got their penalty, Gatland would have LOST both tests. These aren't massive ifs and buts, that is literally the level of how close both tours were to being lost.

As a matter of interest let's compare Gatland with various coaches:

Gatland: Ireland: 47.37%, Wales: 50.53%

Jones: Australia: 58%, England: 95%
Lancaster: 61%
Johnson: 53%
Brian Ashton: 55%

Schmidt: 67.4%
Kidney: 51.9%
O'Sullivan 64.9%

Cotter: 53%
Robinson: 43%
Hadden: 39%

As you can see only Scotland during years where they were absolutely pathetic have had a worse win % than Gatland has in his 2 terms as head coach. Gatland has had a fuckton of luck with both the Lions and Wales to make it look like he is more successful than he really is.

 

[RedruthRFC]

not i , the others are doing circular reasoning.
gatland drew the series against the toughest team in the world; fact.
schmidt and eJones havent coached lions ; fact.
ergo - gatland is a great coach

People who feel the need to end statements with the word "fact" aren't very good at arguing their case. Fact. Enough said. Simples!

 

[mania]

its not circular. its quite linear and simpler. gatland is a great coach and achieved what everyone said he couldn't.
gatland right from the beginning embraced this tour and took it head on. he brought together individuals and had them play what is reputedly the hardest place to tour against reputedly the toughest team in the world.
you guessing; throwing in schmidt and eJones. you're going around in circles, with guess work and a vivid imagination.
it doesnt matter if you think schmidt or eJones woulda done a better job. the fact is they werent good enough to be selected and they didnt do the job. simple linear thinking
gatland took control and owned this tour.
credit where credit is due. gatland is a great coach

 

[RedruthRFC]

it doesnt matter if you think schmidt or eJones woulda done a better job. the fact is they werent good enough to be selected and they didnt do the job. simple linear thinking

There you go with the "f" word again. This statement assumes that Jones and Schmidt made themselves available for the job (which you're been told repeatedly that they didn't) and that the people responsible for making the appointment (the people who brought you Clive Woodward in 2005 and many other disasters within their own unions) are the ultimate arbiters of who is up to the job.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

its not circular. its quite linear and simpler. gatland is a great coach and achieved what everyone said he couldn't.
gatland right from the beginning embraced this tour and took it head on. he brought together individuals and had them play what is reputedly the hardest place to tour against reputedly the toughest team in the world.
you guessing; throwing in schmidt and eJones. you're going around in circles, with guess work and a vivid imagination.
it doesnt matter if you think schmidt or eJones woulda done a better job. the fact is they werent good enough to be selected and they didnt do the job. simple linear thinking
gatland took control and owned this tour.
credit where credit is due. gatland is a great coach

It IS circular, you are determining someone's hypothetical ability to coach the Lions purely on how well they coached the Lions, ie your criteria for determining who should get a job is solely who has the job.

Oh course it is "guess work" because it is a HYPOTHETICAL COMPARISON! How can you not understand this? Also how can you not know that Jones and Schmidt both ruled themselves out of the Lions? Seriously? You want to try to make a point and yet you clearly don't even know the basics of the selection. Let me now explain it in simple terms, Gatland was the ONLY coach from any of the Lions nations who didn't rule himself out! Jones, Schmidt, Cotter and Townsend all ruled themselves out.

You say credit where it is due whilst denying the achievements of Jones and Schmidt are superior to those of Gatland and denying that Gatland has one of the worst winning %ages of any of the modern coaches of Lions nations...

 

[mania]

It IS circular, you are determining someone's hypothetical ability to coach the Lions purely on how well they coached the Lions, ie your criteria for determining who should get a job is solely who has the job.

no there is no comparison. your going in circles.
gatland did the job end of argument thanks for coming.
gatland is one of the great lions coaches.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think he is an excellent coach and goes into great detail but as a head coach I think he misses the big picture. Ireland are a very robotic team under Schmidt and while people will applaud the consistency, I read an Oscar Wilde quote this week that said - "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.". That sums up Schmidt imo. Ireland are predictable, play a defensive game, the players are discouraged from offloading the ball and every game is a war of attrition. I'm not sure the New Zealand public would be too impressed with that so he would have to prove himself in Super rugby first.


The unimaginative style has turned Robbie Henshaw into a bosh merchant. Ireland struggle to score tries even while dominate possession and territory because the whole plan is to keep the ball and go from ruck to ruck. Thats fine when you're playing weaker sides like Italy but the top teams find it easy to stop that. People will point to the 5 tries in Chicago but how many did Ireland score the next week? Zero.


I also think that because Schmidt is a nice guy and Gatland has a spikey personality, it clouds peoples judgement.

No tries when the aforementioned bosh merchant (Do you know Jamie Roberts?) and his mercurial 10 go off injured... D-, must try harder...

Criticising Schmidt for lack of imagination while praising Gatland is trolling, end of. Did Joe sleep with your missus?

 

[Penne Rara]

@mania: You've got to acknowledge that Ragerancher did make a fair point.

To declare that Gatland is a great coach as a consequence that Jones and Schmidt haven't coached the Lions does not make much sense. You could have said that, without any loss of generality, Gatland having done so well only means that he is a good coach. We're all entitled to our own opinions - and opinions are generally not proven points - but no one in their right mind should be denying quantitative results. And indeed, stats are showing that Gatland has been doing very well during the last two Lions tours compared to his immediate predecessors. But who's telling you that he is better than his rivals when no piece of information allows us to effectively draw a comparison between them (as far as it is about coaching the Lions)? I believe that rugby is such a complex sport that outcomes cannot be decided in advance following statistical studies let alone guessed by mere commoners such as you and me. Individual performance can't be foreseen, so any assumption about who's best suited for the job shouldn't lean on reasoning or quantitative data, as they don't represent a viable tool of prediction for an ever changing system. Under certain circumstances, Jones would have lost the tour if he had been appointed as the Lions coach. In a parallel Universe, Schmidt wins the tour 3-0... but England then proceeds to beat Ireland in the following Six Nations comp and win the Grand Slam. Unpredictability shouldn't allow us to draw quick conclusions, and especially not by using fallacious reasoning.

Edit: sorry I pressed the wrong button and the message showed up before I could finish writing it

 

[mania]

@mania: You've got to acknowledge that Ragerancher did make a fair point.

No sorry I disagree
i didnt initially bring up schmidt and eJones. i was replying to that.
i said gatland was a great coach and then it was replied that eJones or schmidt wouldve done better., so i'm replying to those that say without proof that eJones and schmidtwouldve done a better job.

thats BS

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

no there is no comparison. your going in circles.
gatland did the job end of argument thanks for coming.
gatland is one of the great lions coaches.

I don't think I've met many who have acted quite as dense as you... You literally have just responded with the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

Gatland did the job but it is NOT the end of the argument that others could have also done it and possibly better. Ever consider the Lions may have won despite Gatland rather than because of him? Also it doesn't matter how many times you deny it, your argument IS circular reasoning. Since you still can't work it out:

A: Gatland would be better than the alternatives because he was selected for the Lions
B: Gatland was selected for the Lions because he was better than the alternatives

That is circular reasoning! FFS a grown adult should not have to have this shown like this.

 

[mania]

I don't think I've met many who have acted quite as dense as you... You literally have just responded with the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

sorry i'm giving an opinion. i didnt realise you wanted someone to agree with you. i dont do sycophant. if u dont like others view take a long walk off a short pier. i'm sorry you dont agree gatlands a great coach. obviously drawing the series vs the best team in the world isnt good enough for you? who cares.

and thank you for agreeing "Gatland did the job" thats all that matters.

but hey enjoy your "if only" moments. if only eJones or schmidt were coaching we wouldve won. if only suartLancaster did better we'd be world cup champs. if only blah blah blah

the what ifs dont matter. gatlands an awesome coach
get over it, its only rugby. u need a life and take a chill pill