I felt like the O'Driscoll decision wouldn't have been relevant in the outcome of the game as such, because of the squad's depth. It would be an insult to Davies to think so.
However, I think to drop him from the 22 overall was pathetic. He has hardly been in poor form, as some suggest, having made a considerable amount more tackles than other players.
Not going to argue with the outcome though; a job well done all round.
However, I think to drop him from the 22 overall was pathetic. He has hardly been in poor form, as some suggest, having made a considerable amount more tackles than other players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think that's the main reason he was dropped from the 22. If they were winning well then there would be no reason to change it, but if they were losing then Tuilagi is more of an impact replacement. If Gatland needed someone to come on to make an impact in the backs, then Tuilagi was the man.
BOD is no doubt a legend and I did feel for him but for me the right decision was made.
The real and major Impact in the final test was made by Corbs and Jones in the front row. And then having Romain Poite as the ref basically nailed the Ozzy coffin shut. O'Driscoll was the best defensive player on the tour,hands down. In attack the Lions in general got pinged by the SH ref's in the first 2 tests far too much and that is probably the unfortunate reason why O'Driscoll was dropped. His full showcase of talents was not on show because the SH refs saw him as illegal in the rucks on the but in the NH most of us had our hands in the air asking why the hell the Ref was pinging him.
There is no way to know what difference it would have made if BO'D had played the last test with Poite, but i suspect the winning margin would have been greater and the ozzies would have scored less due to a better defender being on the pitch.
With all that said, the old adage stands. Forwards win games backs decide by how much and there is no doubt that Corbs and Jones took the Ozzies to the cleaners. And that was the winning of the game. But they did it because Poite reffed the scrum properly! Unlike the first and second tests.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Warren Gatland
Page 1 of 1
posted on 8/7/13
I felt like the O'Driscoll decision wouldn't have been relevant in the outcome of the game as such, because of the squad's depth. It would be an insult to Davies to think so.
However, I think to drop him from the 22 overall was pathetic. He has hardly been in poor form, as some suggest, having made a considerable amount more tackles than other players.
Not going to argue with the outcome though; a job well done all round.
posted on 10/7/13
However, I think to drop him from the 22 overall was pathetic. He has hardly been in poor form, as some suggest, having made a considerable amount more tackles than other players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think that's the main reason he was dropped from the 22. If they were winning well then there would be no reason to change it, but if they were losing then Tuilagi is more of an impact replacement. If Gatland needed someone to come on to make an impact in the backs, then Tuilagi was the man.
BOD is no doubt a legend and I did feel for him but for me the right decision was made.
posted on 10/7/13
The real and major Impact in the final test was made by Corbs and Jones in the front row. And then having Romain Poite as the ref basically nailed the Ozzy coffin shut. O'Driscoll was the best defensive player on the tour,hands down. In attack the Lions in general got pinged by the SH ref's in the first 2 tests far too much and that is probably the unfortunate reason why O'Driscoll was dropped. His full showcase of talents was not on show because the SH refs saw him as illegal in the rucks on the but in the NH most of us had our hands in the air asking why the hell the Ref was pinging him.
There is no way to know what difference it would have made if BO'D had played the last test with Poite, but i suspect the winning margin would have been greater and the ozzies would have scored less due to a better defender being on the pitch.
With all that said, the old adage stands. Forwards win games backs decide by how much and there is no doubt that Corbs and Jones took the Ozzies to the cleaners. And that was the winning of the game. But they did it because Poite reffed the scrum properly! Unlike the first and second tests.
Page 1 of 1