RugbyRebels

As well as criticising the preparation before the first and third Test matches by Warren Gatland and his staff, O'Brien was especially critical of attack coach Rob Howley.

The 30-year-old said the midfield pairing of Johnny Sexton and Owen Farrell were "running our attack shape" by the end of the tour.

"The coaches have a lot to answer for in terms of our attack rather than Johnny and Faz trying to drive it," said O'Brien.

"If I was being critical of any coach it would be the fact that I think Rob struggled with the group in terms of his attributes of trying to get stuff across whereas Johnny and Owen drove everything the second week, for instance, in our attack and had a better plan in place.

"So I don't know if it was people not buying into what he was about or whatever else.

"That's the hard thing about a Lions tour as well; getting everyone to listen to a coach that was probably set in his ways."

I'm only surprised we don't hear more from the Welsh players about the limitations of Gatball. Though I don't know SOB was especially critical of Howley, he did sort of suggest Howley wasn't the best coach but also that the players didn't really buy in, and sometimes players don't listen to some coaches, even good ones, I thought he was more critical however of the players being worked too hard ahead of the first and last test

I like having my biases confirmed.

Digby wrote:I'm only surprised we don't hear more from the Welsh players about the limitations of Gatball. Though I don't know SOB was especially critical of Howley, he did sort of suggest Howley wasn't the best coach but also that the players didn't really buy in, and sometimes players don't listen to some coaches, even good ones, I thought he was more critical however of the players being worked too hard ahead of the first and last test

Any Welsh player criticising would kiss goodbye to future caps, but SOB has nothing to lose, especially as the Irish feelings towards Gatland are well known.

Interesting that SOB explicitly states they were "over-trained", a criticism many of us have often levelled at Gats' Wales teams over the years

Lord Llandaff wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm only surprised we don't hear more from the Welsh players about the limitations of Gatball. Though I don't know SOB was especially critical of Howley, he did sort of suggest Howley wasn't the best coach but also that the players didn't really buy in, and sometimes players don't listen to some coaches, even good ones, I thought he was more critical however of the players being worked too hard ahead of the first and last test

Any Welsh player criticising would kiss goodbye to future caps, but SOB has nothing to lose, especially as the Irish feelings towards Gatland are well known.

See when Danny Cipriani told the England coaches under Johnson their attack plans were stupid and wouldn't work that was in no way held against him. And then when Burt arrived he did't speak to Danny about why in fact the stupid attack plans hadn't worked he instead left him out as he'd told the stupid coaches their stupid plans were stupid. So I don't know it's just Welsh players who'd be treated in such fashion. Things are a bit different in Oz and France where the coaches surely expect to be called stupid on a daily basis.

But we haven't really heard much from the likes of Henson, Hook, Roberts... and they must know there's a lot of potential being missed out on in any number of backlines in both selection and delivery.

SOB did have a decent tour. Oirish know about backrow......and they know about link play.

It makes total sense, nice to have a player not in fear of losing future caps to speak out.

The weird thing is that Gatland just can't see it. Unless he's been "encouraged" by the WRU to employ their favoured son, Howley, but even if this is the case it's astounding he's put up with it for so long. Much more likely he actually thinks Howley is the best man for the job, incredible as that might seem.

Much as I think a draw was a very good result for the Lions, I agree that better coaches (eg Eddie Jones, Schmidt) could have won it. Not sure about 3-0 though.....

Whilst I think very few people would stick up for howley given wales turgid attack model for years, claiming that the lions would have won a whitewash is pushing it a bit. I think Jones would have done a very good job, but very few sides beat the ABs 3 nil over a series and the lions were a work in progress throughout.


Ultimately the problem with statements like this is that they can’t be proven either way. It may confirm some bias but since Jones wasn’t in charge we will never know.

Sandydragon wrote:Whilst I think very few people would stick up for howley given wales turgid attack model for years, claiming that the lions would have won a whitewash is pushing it a bit. I think Jones would have done a very good job, but very few sides beat the ABs 3 nil over a series and the lions were a work in progress throughout.


Ultimately the problem with statements like this is that they can’t be proven either way. It may confirm some bias but since Jones wasn’t in charge we will never know.

Which is probably why he didn't say that.
He said things like "Should have won the series" "whilst not likely, we could have won 3-0"

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Whilst I think very few people would stick up for howley given wales turgid attack model for years, claiming that the lions would have won a whitewash is pushing it a bit. I think Jones would have done a very good job, but very few sides beat the ABs 3 nil over a series and the lions were a work in progress throughout.


Ultimately the problem with statements like this is that they can’t be proven either way. It may confirm some bias but since Jones wasn’t in charge we will never know.

Which is probably why he didn't say that.
He said things like "Should have won the series" "whilst not likely, we could have won 3-0"

And equally we could have lost the series 3-0, even with Jones in charge. Its all counter-factual and people will take it or leave it depending on their pre-held view of Gatland et al as coaches. Its additionally irrelevant given that Jones ruled himself out of contention for the role.

O'Brien has his opinion and I thin its fair enough that he aired it; its not like he has to worry about ongoing team dynamics or he was sounding off mid-tour. But whether Jones could have pulled the team together into a feasible group in such a short time frame (perhaps why they trained too much before that first game) is something we will never know.

Which Tyler wrote: Which is probably why he didn't say that.
He said things like "Should have won the series" "whilst not likely, we could have won 3-0"

He also said...'maybe I'm completely wrong but...'

Sandydragon wrote:Whilst I think very few people would stick up for howley given wales turgid attack model for years, claiming that the lions would have won a whitewash is pushing it a bit. I think Jones would have done a very good job, but very few sides beat the ABs 3 nil over a series and the lions were a work in progress throughout.


Ultimately the problem with statements like this is that they can’t be proven either way. It may confirm some bias but since Jones wasn’t in charge we will never know.

There was a series there for the taking and (unsurprisingly) Gatland / Howley failed to take it. Whether Jones or whoever would have done any better is ultimately irrelevant in the context of what SOB was saying.

He was trying to give some publicity to his mates website.