He may well bristle at the suggestion of a one dimensional ‘Warren Ball’ approach but he deserves much of the criticism.
The rest must go to Rob Howley, the unimaginative ‘backline skills’ coach whose paws were all over the Lions’ performance in Auckland.
I wrote a number of weeks ago that the Lions had a real shot at winning the series in New Zealand providing Gatland selected a play maker, Owen Farrell at 12.
My reasoning for that centred around the fact that you can’t beat the All Blacks by only scoring six penalties. Nor can you hope to defend the midfield for 80 minutes without line breaks and off-loads splitting the game open.
As is now clear, the Lions cannot even do that against Auckland.
Yet Gatland has so far persisted with a highly defensive set up at 12 and 13. In the first tour match, he selected Ben Te’o and Jamie Joseph. Against the Blues he started with the Irish combination of Henshaw and Payne.
Even when Sexton struggled with pressure from the opposing defence against the Provincial Barbarians and struggled to find his rhythm, Gatland responded by replacing him rather than sending on Farrell at 12 in support.
Farrell has played at 12 for England extensively now and proven a perfect foil for George Ford, a player far less accomplished than Sexton at this stage.
(Tim Anger Photography)
Compounding all of those selection decisions have been the conservative, up and under tactics employed by the backline in general.
All signs now point towards a Te’o and Davies combination for the first Test.
This safety first approach by the Lions coaching set up, seems designed to limit damage rather than do any damage. It is no better than the old school dinosaurs in the English rugby media complaining about the Lions turning down ‘three points’ during live commentary.
You will not beat the All Blacks by strangling them or kicking penalties. You will only lose by less.
Gatland’s now infamous response to the ‘Warren Ball’ questions at his recent Lions’ media conference was both surprising and revealing.
Not only did he chose to take the bait, he took it and then floundered with his explanation and defence.
First he denied that ‘Warren Ball’ was his style before seemingly admitting that he played directly because of the personnel available to Wales over the past ten years. Then he rounded it all off by talking about getting over the gain line and moving the ball to ‘space’.
For all the irritation and indignation wrapped up in Gatland’s spirited but ill-advised self-defence, he seemed to merely confirm that yes, he does like to play the game with a big 12 who gets over the gain line and doesn’t distribute allot.
That may be all well and good if you have a Nonu or Sonny-Bill at your disposal. But Jamie Roberts is not Nonu. Henshaw is not Sonny Bill Williams. Nor is Te’o for that matter.
As much as Eddie Jones irritates most of us at one point or another, his comment that it’s tough to beat New Zealand with big gain line runners alone was spot on.
Gatland is approaching the All Blacks as if they are South Africa or Australia. When was the last time a Kiwi side was bludgeoned to death in the midfield? How often do New Zealand score less than 20 points or get beaten by a side that scores only one or two tries?
(Mike Egerton/PA Wire)
The Welsh side coached by Gatland at the 2015 Rugby World Cup couldn’t even break a 13-man Wallaby defence. Why? Because Gatland and Howley hadn’t coached a Plan B and their players battered away directly without distributing and spreading the undermanned opposition.
Why have Gatland and Howley not learnt lessons from recent experiences? Continuing to dine out on the Welsh success of 5-10 years ago is foolish in the extreme. They may as well call Jamie Roberts in Tonga right now and employ his as a backline consultant.
The positive coming out of the Auckland game was that the Lions pack seems ready to at least get parity with the All Blacks. In fact the Lions will probably better the All Blacks up front, especially if Kieran Read is under done and Dane Coles is unable to recover from concussion.
But we always knew the Lions would compete in the forwards. And unless Gatland changes tack quickly, Kiwis will be saying they always knew the Lions’ backs would be no match.
The old saying that forwards decide who wins a game and backs by how much may just be flipped on its head during this series.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Under Jones at 12 he's added some skills to his bow so I think he gets the benefit of the doubt Kirky. How he goes v Saders will give us an indication of where he's at. I tend to agree successes against non NZ teams are no guide to how he will go here. Many successful inside backs have had stellar careers yet flopped consistently vs NZ sides. Let's see how he goes, this test doesn't get much tougher.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Deans(?)
taylorman
Roar Guru
That may be so but it means they're not practised in any way under pressure either. The AB moves for example are all out there in glorious technicolor for analysis purposes but the value is in their execution, not their surprise. And that comes from practise at as many levels as possible, a luxury the Lions don't have. It's one thing knowing them, another stopping them. But I agree he needs things up his sleeve, a side like the Lions can get a lot of value from being unpredictable, just as you'd get from throwing four different flavoured cans of soup together, problem there is there's more likelihood of a very poor taste than a surprising treat for the palette.
Kirky
Roar Rookie
Keith! How many tries did he score?, he is a reliable first five but nothing less than the traditional British type goal kicking winner a la J Wilkinson not much skills around the Park!
Ben
Guest
Ha! He seems to be missing allot then Keith! Farrell 'just a good goal kicker'. Wow.
Kirky
Roar Rookie
wre01! The Lions first fives look a bit too flimsy for. my liking because as you know they can expect Cane, Ardie and Reade coming at them like freight trains and at great speed also- I wouldn't like to be an inside back or an outside back either against any All Black side! SBW will go past Teo like he wasn't there so no worries there! Teo, North and Davies will know they've been in a game if they last long enough, - Expect the Kiwis to play ultra fast also more so than normal ~ As far as Gatland as a Coach is concerned, once the Lions. leave the dressing room it's all up to them ~ He can't play the game for them!
adastra32
Guest
Nope - Ford fits the bill: his name nearly matches, he's a plucky little' un, and bears more than a passing resemblance to Elijah Wood. As it happens the Eng squad in Argentina now also contains a Mr Underhill, Frodo's alter ego...
Marto
Guest
Drongo Deans is correct spelling is it not??
ShaghaiDoc
Guest
Frodo? Isn't he a Kiwi? Middle Eartyh and all that?
Keith
Guest
Errrr think you should do some research Waxhead... Farrell has won two European championships in a row for Saracens playing 10. Two 6 Nations for England in a row including a grand slam playing 12. 5 tests in a row against Aus and SA playing 12. And best the All Blacks in 2012 as a rookie 21 year old fly half...
taylorman
Roar Guru
I thought he s just a little over eager, and unlucky, but at least he was committed, had intent. Not a good one but still think he deserves another chance, particularly since not many are putting their hand up.
Waxhead
Guest
Seriously you Brits are still in fantasy land - Lion's were beaten and you're acting like they won. They lost cause they were beaten in the forwards. And Wre01 has previously posted articles on the Roar referring to dud Farrell as the northern saviour and best player in world. Wre01 is a Farrell fan boy based on zero evidence of performances against the best 3 nations. He's just a good goal kicker and the north have always been good in that area. Halfpenny kicks equally as great so Farrell is no point of difference for the Lion's. If Gatland picks him in the Tests you'll find out :)
Rebound
Guest
If the "Lions forwards were all over the Blues" is your take on the game, then its no surprise the UK/ European teams win so little against the All Blacks. Waxhead said it so nicely "breakdown, lineout, making the gain line, run metres gained". There is so much more to forward play then you what seem to understand. The only area I thought the Lions had a real edge was defense, but that was mainly in the 1st half. After the interval the Blues adjusted their attack, negating much of the strong Lions defense and lead to the game winning try
taylorman
Roar Guru
Agree, yet no ones really taken that challenge up. After two games in there's not one player you would say...'geez, don't mess with....X'. Don't know how they're going to do it but they need to get right into the Crusaders to get some resemblance of parity on this tour. Two poor performances out of two. This is the tour of their lives. Go figure.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Not saying Farrells a wonderboy, but he's consistent, reliable, solid. For me he's the best they've got in terms of on field leadership and direction.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes but my point is really not about the coach, but the temperament of the players on the field. I don't think the Lions have the goods to win, based on the first two games but win or lose I think a Jones coached side would have had more attitude, there would be more incidents, more fire. These two games have been limped through by the Lions. No ones scary, no ones an enforcer, no ones getting the opposition players or public upset. This tour has all the hallmarks of a side that doesn't know how to win, or even want to win. Only Two matches I know but hands up who's scared of the Lions?
Jacko
Guest
Dont give him alcohol...some speech and spelling may be more appropriate...
Jacko
Guest
Of course it says more about the Lions...And it says a lot about the coaches ability to get his team up for the last test and to make the hard decisions re BOD and to get the game plan right....All things pointing to good coaching... Certainly outcoached his rival in McKenzie on the day
Jacko
Guest
Jones may also have had the ABs playing with extra fire in their belly with some lovely pre test comments. The problem was that Jones had all his success with England after these appointments were made...or being made...So as Gatland won on the last tour he was probably the best option at the time. I would have preferred Jones as the entertainment between Jones and Hansen would be the stufff I'd pay to see but I dont believe that Jones would have had any better success than WG and I think Jones also would have left NZ having lost the series ...Gatland is the one taking all the pressure here...a bit like Jones in that sense...divert it from the players
taylorman
Roar Guru
No, but I think Jones would have sent them onto the playing area with a much greater fire in their bellies. Gatland as a motivator is too internal, too worried about his own shortcomings. And doubts himself. He cares about the consequences too much. Lancaster and now Cheika are the same. Jones knows how to put them out there and perform, he doesn't care what the consequences are for himself, he's had more disappointments than hot dinners. He wants to win, stuff the rest. Stuff the culture, the history, the jersey the lot. Win. That's all there is. Jones would have been a better coach on this tour.