The opening and closing comments are fantastic. I think you've forgotten how bad Davies was in the first two tests and how who was in the 13 jersey in the last match didn't make the slightest bit of difference to the 3rd test despite what you're alluding to.
No one mentioned BO'D before you and it's not really something anyone cares about at this stage. More people don't like how Gatland has a very set style that is easy to predict and counter especially if the team can't establish dominance up front (the real source of the third test win) something that is less likely to happen against New Zealand than Australian and something NZ can definitely deal with better than them. There's also how this game plan relies on certain players meaning that even if they're not in form they will get the start, see Lydiate and Philips which is not a good situation to be in, particulary against NZ.
There's also the fact that pretty much every other option is better. The O'Driscoll dropping is very very far down any list I'd have for not wanting Gatland as coach.
Well Cmac mentioned Gatland living off controversy (not exactly sure how that would help in an actual international rugby game). Ironically the controversy was all blown up by the petulant angry lions 'fans' who almost ruined the entire tour with their blatant fan boy sentiments for Brian and their disappointment at Gatland picking a team made up primarily of Welshman (just read the lions threads and abuse Gatland received personally). This is why I mention it. People do care still and i've seen so much hate for Gatland since because of it. It's actually difficult not to follow their path and start disliking O'Driscoll myself as a result of it.
The rest of your post i'd pretty much agree with. I don't think Gatland will be the man to win the series, but only time will tell. But based on his admittedly predictable style alone, it's the last thing you want to take to NZ.
Can you explain for me though what your point is when you say that Davies played so badly in the first two tests but ignore the fact that when O'Driscoll was in that position, he arguably cost us the second game? Although you say that whoever was i the 13 jersey didn't make the slightest bit of difference in the 3rd test, i would argue that Davies had a very solid game particularly in defense and with his left boot. This is something O'Driscoll was severely lacking in the second test and cost us badly along with losing Warburton. He defended horribly and his kicking was absolutely shocking. Just because a player is not notably game changing in a good or bad way, does not mean they made no difference. Davies was clearly the right choice, and one the team backed as well as most impartial experts (minus Keith Wood, obviously).
I mean you point out that he has his 'favorite' players, but skip the part where since our poor showing at the 6 Nations last year he dropped Phillips and Lydiate's return to form. If the main point is to win tournaments etc, then why would he not have faith in the players who have brought him that success in the recent past? When they are clearly not performing, he either drops them, or perseveres because we simply do not have another outstanding candidate at that time. I agree Phillips may not be the choice if the Lions were to play the All Blacks next week, but then, he isn't even in the Wales 9 shirt now. Same goes for players who he has persisted with like Priestland who although was excellent in 2011/12, should have been dropped much sooner. We forget though, that Biggar was first choice when fit since 2013 so the view that Gatland will select players regardless of their poor form is pretty ill concieved. Just look at the other Coaches, they also have some tendencies to select poor performing players (not going to name any, but will do if asked to). If you want proof, just go to any international thread and watch supports' dismay at some of the bewildering selections of their team.
Yes, it's totally whatever it isn't to point out that Gatland's record against the sort of teams we want is godsawful. Ignorant. Butthurt. Something. Apparently one win completely wipes out the preceding twenty odd games before it, which is good to know. That or Jbobo is more interested in loose wording because it's far easier to construct a reply to that than the super obvious point about Gatland's record. Something like that.
And that's an awful long paragraph with nothing to do with what I've written.
Well, parts were related to what you wrote (note the part which states that it was a stupid comment). The rest was more of a general comment not a direct response to your one line of drivel. How about you actually attempt to counter with a logical response instead of a cop out 'daz not whut I sed doh'. I also love how in my 'paragraph' in response to you, you still quote me on any other comments which are not directed at you personally. Amusing
I'll also point out that all the coaches have pretty awful records against NZ in recent years (don't bring up 2012, that was an England side at their very best (haven't matched it) against, shall we say, a 'poor(ly)' All blacks side. If it is all about records then does Gatland not have the upper hand for actually succeeding in a tournament (or three or four)? And also beating SA unlike Lancaster has and England since 2006? The fact is that the only real candidate at the moment is Schmidt. But even so, all the Lions nations are living in glass houses and have had little to no real success against any of the SANZAR teams. Don't act like it's just Wales.
