Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by SirG » Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:34:15


http://tinyurl.com/cw9q59q
 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by Ben » Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:08:07

Quote:

> http://tinyurl.com/cw9q59q

Translation: don't pick snippy players with media profiles who will go to press with concerns while the tour is underway.

As he is entitled to, of course, Henry is giving his view of events. No doubt Healey and Dawson were bang out of line, but the fact still was that Henry went to Oz with a far better group of players than the Aussies had available at the time.

 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by John » Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:52:44


Quote:

> >http://tinyurl.com/cw9q59q

> Translation: don't pick snippy players with media profiles who will go to press with concerns while the tour is underway.

> As he is entitled to, of course, Henry is giving his view of events. No doubt Healey and Dawson were bang out of line, but the fact still was that Henry went to Oz with a far better group of players than the Aussies had available at the time.

Didn't several key players get injured once there, though?

 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by caspar milquetoas » Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:26:11

Quote:


> http://tinyurl.com/cw9q59q
> Translation: don't pick snippy players with media profiles who will go
> to press with concerns while the tour is underway. As he is entitled
> to, of course, Henry is giving his view of events. No doubt Healey and
> Dawson were bang out of line, but the fact still was that Henry went
> to Oz with a far better group of players than the Aussies had
> available at the time.

Really?

Perry v Latham/Burke. I'll have Latham thanks. Or Burke.

James and Robinson v Walker and Roff. One each would do me, Robinson and Roff.

O'Driscoll and Henderson v Herbert and Grey. Call it a draw.

Wilkinson v Larkham. You'll say Wilkinson but I'd take Larkham any day.

Howley v Gregan. Gregan thanks.

Corry/Back, Hill and Quinnell v Kefu, Smith and Finnegan. The Lions edge this one, but not by heaps.

Grewcock and Johnson v Eales and Giffin. One each again, Eales and Johnson.

Smith, Wood and Vickery v Stiles, Paul/Foley and Panoho/Moore. I'll give you that one, and then some.

There was a reason Australia were world number one around this time, even if the best they could do in the tri-nations were mostly drawn series against the Springboks and All Blacks. They were a top attacking team and difficult proposition for any side in the world. It's nothing but fanciful thinking to imagine that the Lions "desrved" to win this series.

Added to which, Lions series are a lot harder than they used to be. Touring teams used to have a great advantage in melding a team together on the road, while the home side was allowed to come together only shortly before the tests.

These days, all the advantages rest with the home side, and constant internationals and video analysis etc mean that the teams know each other inside out before the first game is played. The Lions have the additional burden of taking players from different teams and different styles and making them into a winning unit with little preparation. To beat any of the major SH sides is a real big mountain for them to climb and they should never be regarded as anything but underdogs.

 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by Ben » Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:22:50

Quote:



> > http://tinyurl.com/cw9q59q

> > Translation: don't pick snippy players with media profiles who will go

> > to press with concerns while the tour is underway. As he is entitled

> > to, of course, Henry is giving his view of events. No doubt Healey and

> > Dawson were bang out of line, but the fact still was that Henry went

> > to Oz with a far better group of players than the Aussies had

> > available at the time.

> Really?

Really. The players you're mentioning are fine players, but many, like Eales and Burke, were nearing the end of their careers.

At the time, for example, Matt Perry was on fire and was the equal of either Latham and Burke even if his career headed downhill fast post injury. I've no doubt the Aussies had the better careers but Perry was very, very good pre-injury. Agreed on the wings. The Lions had the better centre partnership - Henderson and Grey are arguably much of a muchness but O'Driscoll was electric for several years when he burst on the scene. Wilkinson/Larkham is a tough one because they are such different players but this was pre-injury Wilkinson when he was the best test 10 in world rugby. Gregan/Howley might fall Gregan's way but Howley had beaten out a fine 9 in Dawson and was the pre-eminent 9 in European rugby at the time. Arguably evens on the back row but the Lions had a much more solid tight five.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Perry v Latham/Burke. I'll have Latham thanks. Or Burke.

> James and Robinson v Walker and Roff. One each would do me, Robinson and Roff.

> O'Driscoll and Henderson v Herbert and Grey. Call it a draw.

> Wilkinson v Larkham. You'll say Wilkinson but I'd take Larkham any day.

> Howley v Gregan. Gregan thanks.

> Corry/Back, Hill and Quinnell v Kefu, Smith and Finnegan. The Lions edge this one, but not by heaps.

> Grewcock and Johnson v Eales and Giffin. One each again, Eales and Johnson.

> Smith, Wood and Vickery v Stiles, Paul/Foley and Panoho/Moore. I'll give you that one, and then some.

> There was a reason Australia were world number one around this time, even if the best they could do in the tri-nations were mostly drawn series against the Springboks and All Blacks. They were a top attacking team and difficult proposition for any side in the world. It's nothing but fanciful thinking to imagine that the Lions "desrved" to win this series.

Nobody deserves to win anything ever. I'm saying Henry had the better squad, with a strong contingent of the English team that would go on to beat the Aussies several times, and a strong contingent of Welsh and Irish players. By contrast, the Aussies were arguably on their last hurrah after a long period of success under Eales.

Quote:
> Added to which, Lions series are a lot harder than they used to be. Touring teams used to have a great advantage in melding a team together on the road, while the home side was allowed to come together only shortly before the tests.

Sure. But the Lions didn't fluff the first test, or even the first half of the second test. Where the Aussies learnt how to counter the Lions as the tour progressed, the Lions were not tactically smart enough.

Quote:
> These days, all the advantages rest with the home side, and constant internationals and video analysis etc mean that the teams know each other inside out before the first game is played. The Lions have the additional burden of taking players from different teams and different styles and making them into a winning unit with little preparation. To beat any of the major SH sides is a real big mountain for them to climb and they should never be regarded as anything but underdogs.

Hmm. Most years that is true, for sure. There was no real sense of them being underdogs at the time. Home advantage matters, but the Aussies were horrified at the size and volume of the travelling Lions support to the extent it made "home" games feel like away ones.
 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by Mentalguy2k » Thu, 28 Mar 2013 01:58:08



Quote:

> >http://SportToday.org/

> Translation: don't pick snippy players with media profiles who will go to
> press with concerns while the tour is underway.

> As he is entitled to, of course, Henry is giving his view of events. No
> doubt Healey and Dawson were bang out of line, but the fact still was that
> Henry went to Oz with a far better group of players than the Aussies had
> available at the time.
>Didn't several key players get injured once there, though?

According to the article:

"In 2001 we took Lawrence Dallaglio, a world class player, because the
medical opinion said his knee would heal in time. He lasted one game. We
lost Richard Hill before halftime of the second test. Dan Luger went on tour
as the form winger with Jason Robinson and didn't play a game. *** Phil
Greening broke his leg before the first game."

 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by John William » Thu, 28 Mar 2013 02:25:57

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:22:50 -0700 (PDT), Ben L

Quote:




>> > http://tinyurl.com/cw9q59q

>> Added to which, Lions series are a lot harder than they used to be. Touring teams used to have a great advantage in melding a team together on the road, while the home side was allowed to come together only shortly before the tests.

>Sure. But the Lions didn't fluff the first test, or even the first half of the second test. Where the Aussies learnt how to counter the Lions as the tour progressed, the Lions were not tactically smart enough.

I blame it fair and square on Henry's decision to stop running
Quinnell at the guts of Australia at half time, second test.

--

All the best
John Williams

 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by caspar milquetoas » Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:05:45

Quote:


> Really. The players you're mentioning are fine players, but many, like Eales and Burke, were nearing the end of their careers.

> At the time, for example, Matt Perry was on fire and was the equal of either Latham and Burke even if his career headed downhill fast post injury. I've no doubt the Aussies had the better careers but Perry was very, very good pre-injury. Agreed on the wings. The Lions had the better centre partnership - Henderson and Grey are arguably much of a muchness but O'Driscoll was electric for several years when he burst on the scene. Wilkinson/Larkham is a tough one because they are such different players but this was pre-injury Wilkinson when he was the best test 10 in world rugby. Gregan/Howley might fall Gregan's way but Howley had beaten out a fine 9 in Dawson and was the pre-eminent 9 in European rugby at the time. Arguably evens on the back row but the Lions had a much more solid tight five.

> Nobody deserves to win anything ever. I'm saying Henry had the better squad, with a strong contingent of the English team that would go on to beat the Aussies several times, and a strong contingent of Welsh and Irish players. By contrast, the Aussies were arguably on their last hurrah after a long period of success under Eales.

> > Added to which, Lions series are a lot harder than they used to be. Touring teams used to have a great advantage in melding a team together on the road, while the home side was allowed to come together only shortly before the tests.

> Sure. But the Lions didn't fluff the first test, or even the first half of the second test. Where the Aussies learnt how to counter the Lions as the tour progressed, the Lions were not tactically smart enough.

> > These days, all the advantages rest with the home side, and constant internationals and video analysis etc mean that the teams know each other inside out before the first game is played. The Lions have the additional burden of taking players from different teams and different styles and making them into a winning unit with little preparation. To beat any of the major SH sides is a real big mountain for them to climb and they should never be regarded as anything but underdogs.

> Hmm. Most years that is true, for sure. There was no real sense of them being underdogs at the time. Home advantage matters, but the Aussies were horrified at the size and volume of the travelling Lions support to the extent it made "home" games feel like away ones.

Well, Australians should be used to that. Bob Dwyer used to complain about all the New Zealanders who came to Sydney tests until it felt like an away game.

The Lions did have their problems, but  my real issue remains with your statement that Henry had a squad that was "far better" than the players Australia had to offer, which I think is just you NH yypes givng yourself licence to blame the foreign coach.

Australia were world number one around this time, regularly beating the All Blacks and Springboks, much to my disgust. Don't kid yourself that British players were at a higher level. Given the difficulty of bringing players together from four teams and making them competitive agaiinst a tight, experienced top SH side, the outcome was about right. Close -- could have gone either way. Them's the breaks.

 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by Ben » Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:37:22

<snip>

Quote:
> Well, Australians should be used to that. Bob Dwyer used to complain about all the New Zealanders who came to Sydney tests until it felt like an away game.

> The Lions did have their problems, but  my real issue remains with your statement that Henry had a squad that was "far better" than the players Australia had to offer, which I think is just you NH yypes givng yourself licence to blame the foreign coach.

Not really. Compared to Woodward's tenure as Lions coach Henry was a paragon of success.

Quote:
> Australia were world number one around this time, regularly beating the All Blacks and Springboks, much to my disgust. Don't kid yourself that British players were at a higher level.

That Aussie team was in a period of transition despite the RWC win in 1999 and stellar 3N season of 2000. The Wobblies had beaten England in 1998 on the tour of hell, and again in 1999 in Sydney. They then lost three times on the bounce at Twickenham and wouldn't beat England again until 2004. There wasn't much form to judge on Aussies v Wales or Ireland although they had stuffed Scotland the previous autumn.

They were definitely there for the taking. Notably unlike 2005, where there wasn't the same sense of vulnerability in the oppo pre-tour.

Quote:
>Given the difficulty of bringing players together from four teams and making them competitive agaiinst a tight, experienced top SH side, the outcome was about right. Close -- could have gone either way. Them's the breaks.

Sure. It's always true that the Lions is about balancing the demands of pulling a disparate group into a cohesive unit quickly against a team with a smaller selection pool but longer together. I'm not pretending I'm not biased, but the general feeling here is that Henry got the tactics wrong when he had the firepower - especially up front - to beat Australia into submission.
 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by willsutto » Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:03:23


Quote:


>> http://tinyurl.com/cw9q59q

>> Translation: don't pick snippy players with media profiles who will go
>> to press with concerns while the tour is underway. As he is entitled
>> to, of course, Henry is giving his view of events. No doubt Healey and
>> Dawson were bang out of line, but the fact still was that Henry went
>> to Oz with a far better group of players than the Aussies had
>> available at the time.

> Really?

> Perry v Latham/Burke. I'll have Latham thanks. Or Burke.

> James and Robinson v Walker and Roff. One each would do me, Robinson and Roff.

> O'Driscoll and Henderson v Herbert and Grey. Call it a draw.

> Wilkinson v Larkham. You'll say Wilkinson but I'd take Larkham any day.

> Howley v Gregan. Gregan thanks.

> Corry/Back, Hill and Quinnell v Kefu, Smith and Finnegan. The Lions edge this one, but not by heaps.

> Grewcock and Johnson v Eales and Giffin. One each again, Eales and Johnson.

> Smith, Wood and Vickery v Stiles, Paul/Foley and Panoho/Moore. I'll give you that one, and then some.

> There was a reason Australia were world number one around this time, even if the best they could do in the tri-nations were mostly drawn series against the Springboks and All Blacks. They were a top attacking team and difficult proposition for any side in the world. It's nothing but fanciful thinking to imagine that the Lions "desrved" to win this series.

> Added to which, Lions series are a lot harder than they used to be. Touring teams used to have a great advantage in melding a team together on the road, while the home side was allowed to come together only shortly before the tests.

> These days, all the advantages rest with the home side, and constant internationals and video analysis etc mean that the teams know each other inside out before the first game is played. The Lions have the additional burden of taking players from different teams and different styles and making them into a winning unit with little preparation. To beat any of the major SH sides is a real big mountain for them to climb and they should never be regarded as anything but underdogs.

who are you ?
 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by simon s- » Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:41:03

<snip>

Quote:
> These days, all the advantages rest with the home side, and constant internationals and video analysis etc mean that the teams know each other inside out before the first game is played. The Lions have the additional burden of taking players from different teams and different styles and making them into a winning unit with little preparation. To beat any of the major SH sides is a real big mountain for them to climb and they should never be regarded as anything but underdogs.

On this point, I always think that the tours of old (when they didn't really do mid-week teams) had a better chance, as they had more time to gain cohesion.  
 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by caspar milquetoas » Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:07:43

Quote:

> <snip>

> > These days, all the advantages rest with the home side, and constant internationals and video analysis etc mean that the teams know each other inside out before the first game is played. The Lions have the additional burden of taking players from different teams and different styles and making them into a winning unit with little preparation. To beat any of the major SH sides is a real big mountain for them to climb and they should never be regarded as anything but underdogs.

> On this point, I always think that the tours of old (when they didn't really do mid-week teams) had a better chance, as they had more time to gain cohesion.

Quite right. It was a balance that worked -- the touring team had the advantage of developing a team continuity and cohesion on numerous tour games before the tests, usually at the end of the their season with all the preparation, fitness and combinations; while the home side were not allowed to gather until the week before the test, and rusty from lack of rugby at the start of their season -- but they had all the advantage of home grounds, home conditions, home crowds and (in the old days) home referees.  

Nowadays the home team has all the advantages.

 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by caspar milquetoas » Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:36:41

Quote:




> >> http://SportToday.org/

> > These days, all the advantages rest with the home side, and constant internationals and video analysis etc mean that the teams know each other inside out before the first game is played. The Lions have the additional burden of taking players from different teams and different styles and making them into a winning unit with little preparation. To beat any of the major SH sides is a real big mountain for them to climb and they should never be regarded as anything but underdogs.

> who are you ?

I'm the guy who is always the fair and objective voice of reason, regardless of the teams under debate. I'm the guy who points out to other people that their biased, prejudiced veiws do not stand the scrutiny of objective logic.

Here was have seen another side to a debate that took place between myself and Mike "Rabbit's Foot" Thomson back in the ealry noughties. In both cases I have shown the reasonable view of close games, and in both cases this view has been seen as denigrating the noble, stalwart lads of  the complainant's team, because they want nothing but praise for their achievements and excuses for their failures.

Certain Australians were far too full of themselves with the Wallabies achievements in the late 90s early noughties, as Australians are wont to be, proclaiming them as dominating world rugby.

I felt constraned to ponit out that this 'world domination' was based on drawn series and lucky, last-minute face-savers. At this point Mr Thompson went off like a cheap packet of Hong Kong fireworks. A little humility and objectivity would have gone a long way.

Now we see the reverse case, where certains poms would have it that their mighty Lions team really should have won their 2001 series because they were essentially a better team  than Australia, but I'm not having that either.   Australia might not have dominated world rugby but they were world number one for a time and had a selection of international class players that the current Wallabies can only dream about. In my opinion, even if the Lions had played to their best, they had the players to be competitive only, not ***.

But do I get any thanks for helping enthusiastic but misguided posters understand the true reality of rugby? No. Like all martyrs my reward will be in heaven. (Where I'm hoping for a spot on the All Blacks wing, Kylie Minogue and a magic tankard of Stoke Amber that never empties.

 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by mr_tiger_fis » Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:31:51

The IRB rankings started in 2003. By which ranking system were Australia #1 in 2001?
 
 
 

Graham Henry offers advice for Gatland

Post by willsutto » Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:59:21


Quote:




>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cw9q59q

>>> These days, all the advantages rest with the home side, and constant internationals and video analysis etc mean that the teams know each other inside out before the first game is played. The Lions have the additional burden of taking players from different teams and different styles and making them into a winning unit with little preparation. To beat any of the major SH sides is a real big mountain for them to climb and they should never be regarded as anything but underdogs.

>> who are you ?

> I'm the guy who is always the fair and objective voice of reason, regardless of the teams under debate. I'm the guy who points out to other people that their biased, prejudiced veiws do not stand the scrutiny of objective logic.

Only read the first line and after climbing up off the floor I cut the
rest and did a quick reply

btw: whats your opinion of the Forces young centre  ......  for me, he
has more talent  then I have seen for years in the Australian scene