SOB lays into Gats

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Nothing to gained by saying it publicly at the time.

Not like the coaches would be sacked, all it would do is cause a shitstorm in the media for the team and most likely do more harm than good.

SOB has done it at the right time IMO, he's allowed those who viewed it as a success time to celebrate whilst keeping it close enough to the tour that it is still relevant and not some player looking to get more after dinner money or releasing a book.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I certainly don't think the players should be held to a code of omertà if they do consider there were problems, however I hope he has not just gone to the media on this. Unless he's also privately raised his concerns with Lions management then you'd be justified in questioning his motives I think.

I also think it's not necessarily as simple as he makes out. One man's overtraining is another man's exactly the right amount, as a man with historic injury problems possibly SOB has a lower threshold for overtraining? I don't know. But I can certainly imagine a scenario where a player is complaining that the team was underprepared because they didn't train enough - SOB is only one man. There's also the issue that everything comes at a price, who's to say improved attack wouldn't have necessitated less focus on defence and fitness? (Although I don't think there's any controversy over the claim that Howley isn't an international standard attack coach, even the most biased Welsh fans are pretty clear on that!)

To be clear - it may well be true, it is certainly possible if not likely. But let's not jump to assumptions on the opinion of one man. And it was a good result, regardless of whether it could have been better.

I wouldn't say they are the best team in the world either that up for debate, world ranking point accumulated whilst one of the best team ever followed by not losing any because everyone you've played (except Ireland) are currently playing rubbish.

Currently they are as good as Ireland and haven't measured up against England (In equal measure England haven't play3d them so cant say they are the best). The three best teams in the world are NZ, England and Ireland but i wouldnt claim one over the other at the moment.

Disagree on this to be honest, the 1-2-3 at the top is pretty unequivocal IMO. Although the ABs are definitely worse than they have been in recent memory, based on recent results the gap from them to England is fairly clear and the gap from England to Ireland even clearer.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I certainly don't think the players should be held to a code of omertà if they do consider there were problems, however I hope he has not just gone to the media on this. Unless he's also privately raised his concerns with Lions management then you'd be justified in questioning his motives I think.

I also think it's not necessarily as simple as he makes out. One man's overtraining is another man's exactly the right amount, as a man with historic injury problems possibly SOB has a lower threshold for overtraining? I don't know. But I can certainly imagine a scenario where a player is complaining that the team was underprepared because they didn't train enough - SOB is only one man. There's also the issue that everything comes at a price, who's to say improved attack wouldn't have necessitated less focus on defence and fitness? (Although I don't think there's any controversy over the claim that Howley isn't an international standard attack coach, even the most biased Welsh fans are pretty clear on that!)

To be clear - it may well be true, it is certainly possible if not likely. But let's not jump to assumptions on the opinion of one man. And it was a good result, regardless of whether it could have been better.

I wouldn't say they are the best team in the world either that up for debate, world ranking point accumulated whilst one of the best team ever followed by not losing any because everyone you've played (except Ireland) are currently playing rubbish.

Currently they are as good as Ireland and haven't measured up against England (In equal measure England haven't play3d them so cant say they are the best). The three best teams in the world are NZ, England and Ireland but i wouldnt claim one over the other at the moment.

Disagree on this to be honest, the 1-2-3 at the top is pretty unequivocal IMO. Although the ABs are definitely worse than they have been in recent memory, based on recent results the gap from them to England is fairly clear and the gap from England to Ireland even clearer.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I certainly don't think the players should be held to a code of omertà if they do consider there were problems, however I hope he has not just gone to the media on this. Unless he's also privately raised his concerns with Lions management then you'd be justified in questioning his motives I think.

I also think it's not necessarily as simple as he makes out. One man's overtraining is another man's exactly the right amount, as a man with historic injury problems possibly SOB has a lower threshold for overtraining? I don't know. But I can certainly imagine a scenario where a player is complaining that the team was underprepared because they didn't train enough - SOB is only one man. There's also the issue that everything comes at a price, who's to say improved attack wouldn't have necessitated less focus on defence and fitness? (Although I don't think there's any controversy over the claim that Howley isn't an international standard attack coach, even the most biased Welsh fans are pretty clear on that!)

To be clear - it may well be true, it is certainly possible if not likely. But let's not jump to assumptions on the opinion of one man. And it was a good result, regardless of whether it could have been better.



Disagree on this to be honest, the 1-2-3 at the top is pretty unequivocal IMO. Although the ABs are definitely worse than they have been in recent memory, based on recent results the gap from them to England is fairly clear and the gap from England to Ireland even clearer.

He wouldn't have come out and said this without agreement from Sexton considering he name checked Johnny more than once. Billy Vunipola's agreement is all but Mako's agreement too, while no player took it upon themselves to immediately come out and say he was out of line, I think this all speaks volumes.

As for the top three I definitely think you're exaggerating. Between the three I think the home team at full strength wins 70-80% of the time. The difference is depth, if Ireland lose Henshaw, Murray or Sexton they get significantly worse, England's only example of that would be Farrell and maybe Billy Vunipola whereas NZ need more than one player to go to see a big drop off. So basically my opinion would be NZ don't have the best 23 and coaching in world rugby (in a perfect scenario where there are no early injuries) but they have the best 30-35 which is why they remain so consistent, England are a bit further back insofar as if there's an injury to a player there's a one/two in 15 chance they're going to become a notably worse team while in Ireland its 3 in 15 with the loss of Sexton being almost fatal. I think NZ are a little bit better than England which cm be seen in them winning all their games comfortably whereas sides like Wales and France can give them a scare and what England better than Ireland is that they aren't susceptible to losing to sides like that like we are. Not huge gaps at all and against an NZ side who were down Dane Coles, Ryan Crotty and SBW, with a 10 who can't kick and was easily bullied out of the game without Crotty for significant time over three tests I'd expect both England and Ireland to win that test series if escaping multiple key injuries.

 

[curtbob7]

I wouldn't say they are the best team in the world either that up for debate, world ranking point accumulated whilst one of the best team ever followed by not losing any because everyone you've played (except Ireland) are currently playing rubbish.

Currently they are as good as Ireland and haven't measured up against England (In equal measure England haven't play3d them so cant say they are the best). The three best teams in the world are NZ, England and Ireland but i wouldnt claim one over the other at the moment.

I would. I would definitely say NZ are better than England and England are better than Ireland.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think NZ are clearly numero uno

I think England are number 2, because I think if we played every team in the world we'd win more than Ireland would, but at the same time if we played Ireland 10 times I'd expect them to win 6 (I think Ireland have a better shot at a Twickenham win than us a Dublin). Very very close either way.

To echo this it was rumoured at the time a few players did speak up so I don't think it's a case of only speaking up now.

The rumours of Farrell and Sexton taking over the backs were definitely flying around

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I'm in two minds about this. Namechecking an individual negatively isn't great, but if he thinks Gatland and Howley have taken credit for the efforts of Owen and Jonny then fair enough.

I can't recall either coach making a statement about Owen and Jonny stepping up in training and helping shape the gameplan. But I wasn't following coverage of the tour like a hawk.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I think NZ are clearly numero uno

I think England are number 2, because I think if we played every team in the world we'd win more than Ireland would, but at the same time if we played Ireland 10 times I'd expect them to win 6 (I think Ireland have a better shot at a Twickenham win than us a Dublin). Very very close either way.

The rumours of Farrell and Sexton taking over the backs were definitely flying around

My point is head to heads are not how you decide who's better, otherwise Fiji would be the best in the world by virtue of beating Scotland who beat Ireland who beat NZ its all nonsense. Yeah Ireland perform well against England and would continue to do so but I don't buy that it's better than 50/50, and more importantly (more objectively) their win-loss ratio in the last 2 years (against similar teams) is significantly worse than England's. England are much more consistent in their results, that is objectively undeniable to my mind. In a league situation, two teams with such different win-loss records would be a long way apart in the table and no one would try to claim they were basically even

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

My point is head to heads are not how you decide who's better, otherwise Fiji would be the best in the world by virtue of beating Scotland who beat Ireland who beat NZ its all nonsense. Yeah Ireland perform well against England and would continue to do so but I don't buy that it's better than 50/50, and more importantly (more objectively) their win-loss ratio in the last 2 years (against similar teams) is significantly worse than England's. England are much more consistent in their results, that is objectively undeniable to my mind. In a league situation, two teams with such different win-loss records would be a long way apart in the table and no one would try to claim they were basically even

But no one was claiming Ireland to be a top three side 12 months ago, it was because of the November series last year they earned that. In the last 12 months New Zealand are 7-0-1 (Lions ecxl.), England are 11-0-1 (or 10 maybe), and Ireland are 9-0-3. The win/loss ratio isnt "significantly worse" and had England and NZ had played twice in the same period the win/loss ratio would be even closer. Then you consider variables like what if Sexton had been fit for Murrayfield or hadn't gone off for the HIA in Cardiff which led to a Welsh try or what if Farrell had missed Cardiff etc... There's an argument to be made that England are better than Ireland solely because they're best players are less injury prone, I don't think that argument would be given the light of day when discussing the difference between England and NZ.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

https://out.reddit.com/t3_71pzj2?ur...N4YaZ7qhmUX1inMyxP1crxuvcuT9E&app_name=mweb2x

 

[Every Time Ref]

But no one was claiming Ireland to be a top three side 12 months ago, it was because of the November series last year they earned that. In the last 12 months New Zealand are 7-0-1 (Lions ecxl.), England are 11-0-1 (or 10 maybe), and Ireland are 9-0-3. The win/loss ratio isnt "significantly worse" and had England and NZ had played twice in the same period the win/loss ratio would be even closer. Then you consider variables like what if Sexton had been fit for Murrayfield or hadn't gone off for the HIA in Cardiff which led to a Welsh try or what if Farrell had missed Cardiff etc... There's an argument to be made that England are better than Ireland solely because they're best players are less injury prone, I don't think that argument would be given the light of day when discussing the difference between England and NZ.

75-25 is a significantly worse win-loss ratio than *iPhone calculator* 92-8. I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can question that.

I'm not saying it couldn't change quickly, form is notoriously fickle, but right now it's a clear gap in terms of results - which are, at the end of the day, the only true indicator of how good a team is.

(Don't worry though - I still find the Irish as a people to be pleasantly unthreatening goofballs with a simply marvellous affection for a point o' de black stoff and an attractive, lilting accent. That much is safe)

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

75-25 is a significantly worse win-loss ratio than *iPhone calculator* 92-8. I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can question that.

I'm not saying it couldn't change quickly, form is notoriously fickle, but right now it's a clear gap in terms of results - which are, at the end of the day, the only true indicator of how good a team is.

(Don't worry though - I still find the Irish as a people to be pleasantly unthreatening goofballs with a simply marvellous affection for a point o' de black stoff and an attractive, lilting accent. That much is safe)

Only the Republic Irish though, the northern Irish sound like they could grate cheese by speaking to it.

 

[General Melchett]

Howler, as many on here have pointed out, is not an international standard attack coach but in his defence it's not his fault he toured. I'm sure he did his best but the fault lies squarely with Gatland who picked him in the first place and put personal loyalty over the outcome of the test series.

 

[Reiser99]

I think O'Brien is justified in his criticism and if it's true that Sexton and Farrell started organising the attack, then that means Gatland and Howler got undue praise. For me a lot was made of how the Lions changed tactics and became more attacking, leaving Warren Ball behind. Now it seems that wasn't Gatland and Howler after all. Honestly considering the publicity and praise they received they should have earnt it.

 

[Rich Taff]

Wouldn't be a Lions tour without a prominent Irish player *****ing afterwards. Maybe he's after Keith Wood's job....
First time I've seen a thread be Irished before the usual suspects even posted though.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Howler, as many on here have pointed out, is not an international standard attack coach but in his defence it's not his fault he toured. I'm sure he did his best but the fault lies squarely with Gatland who picked him in the first place and put personal loyalty over the outcome of the test series.

Could have turned it down
EJ, Schmidt and Townsend all turned down roles

 

[General Melchett]

Could have turned it down
EJ, Schmidt and Townsend all turned down roles

Why would he turn it down? I'm sure he genuinely believed he was the best man for the job in the same way Mike Brown did. Declining would have risked incurring the wrath of his boss and would have had an impact on his position with Wales. Gatland should have picked the best possible option to be head attack coach and he didn't. Simple as.

There are valid reasons why the others declined. Townsend was only given the option of assist Howler and be attack coach of the midweek side.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'm not saying he would but you said it's not his fault he toured, I was just saying he wasn't forced into it.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

75-25 is a significantly worse win-loss ratio than *iPhone calculator* 92-8. I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can question that.

I'm not saying it couldn't change quickly, form is notoriously fickle, but right now it's a clear gap in terms of results - which are, at the end of the day, the only true indicator of how good a team is.

(Don't worry though - I still find the Irish as a people to be pleasantly unthreatening goofballs with a simply marvellous affection for a point o' de black stoff and an attractive, lilting accent. That much is safe)

Very small sample to be using your table analogy

75-25 is a significantly worse win-loss ratio than *iPhone calculator* 92-8. I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can question that.

I'm not saying it couldn't change quickly, form is notoriously fickle, but right now it's a clear gap in terms of results - which are, at the end of the day, the only true indicator of how good a team is.

(Don't worry though - I still find the Irish as a people to be pleasantly unthreatening goofballs with a simply marvellous affection for a point o' de black stoff and an attractive, lilting accent. That much is safe)

That's quite a small amount of games to be using percentages though. If you go back to your league table analogy it'd be like Chelsea (going to use the PL as an example as everyone knows how it works) being six points behind the two Manchester clubs having played three of their four matches against them while City and United haven't played each other yet. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone saying there's a clear gap there at all in my opinion.

 

[Groundhog]

Wouldn't be a Lions tour without a prominent Irish player *****ing afterwards. Maybe he's after Keith Wood's job....
First time I've seen a thread be Irished before the usual suspects even posted though.

Could make a similar generalisation about the Welsh blindly defending their coaches. You call it *****ing, I call it holding coaches accountable for being subpar. The game has moved past Howley and Gatland to the point where they can certainly show up for big games, but not consistently. The less people make excuses for Howley and Gatland, the better. Nothing against them personally, but I don't want them to coach a team I have an interest in.