How much of an influence do the coaches have over their teams...?

There is much blame appropriated and reward attributed to a teams coaches, particularly the head coach.

If an aspect of a team isn't working well the coach responsible gets the wrap for it not the players. Is that right? Or do we hold coaches too responsible for what happens on the field?

The coaches are responsible for turning a group of separate players into a team. They're not responsible for coaching specific skills, such as tackling but they are for forming the defensive structure. But they are responsible for picking players with the core skills. For some sides with little depth their often isn't much choice.

This is a very interesting topic. Had a very similar post on my blog a couple of weeks ago and the general consensus was that although the players are the one's who need to perform when they're on the pitch, the manager's input can be the difference.

An inspiring team talk or a savvy tactical decision can make a massive difference to team morale. Quite often the appointment of a new coach or manager can have a massive effect on the team.

digitalshade wrote:This is a very interesting topic. Had a very similar post on my blog a couple of weeks ago and the general consensus was that although the players are the one's who need to perform when they're on the pitch, the manager's input can be the difference.

An inspiring team talk or a savvy tactical decision can make a massive difference to team morale. Quite often the appointment of a new coach or manager can have a massive effect on the team.

New Coaches more often than not do seem to bring life in to a team, if they are worth their salt.

I am certainly of the line of thought that fans appropriate too much of a teams performance on the coaches. As HoT says

HammerofThunor wrote:The coaches are responsible for turning a group of separate players into a team. They're not responsible for coaching specific skills, such as tackling

Gatland had instant success by picking almost the whole Ospreys squad but we have gone down hill since implementing his robotic left right and kick game. We need another change quick as there seems to be no set moves, we keep picking a flyhalf that can't run or kick, a scrum half that can't pass and a reserve hooker that can't throw.

The coach has to take responsibility for combinations selected, the game plan employed and the overall attitude of the team, getting them to share the same vision and collectively working as a unit.

The players are responsible for executing that plan.

Game plan is an interesting point.

I think almost everyone sees the gameplan as the coaches responsibility. But what if that game plan goes wrong, or is nullified...?

Then the players need to work out what to do to beat the opposition. The players need to change their tactics. How con a coach be responsible for changing the game plan if it isn't working during a match.

Poor coach. If it all goes right then it´s the players who get the praise. Get it wrong and it´s the coach´s head on the block. Defence more than not wins you games and the coach´s defensive patterns are important. But also important is how a team plays on attack and that comes from the coach. A coach needs experienced players to call on when the chips are down but in today´s world of technology, messages can be passed out to the field through various means and knowing when to make positional changes or tactical changes is very important in the second half.

The Coach or Coaches is responsible for the selection,team training,and the way the game is played.His success or failure will depend on his resources at International level.
That means welding players from many seperate teams into one,then getting them to play together.
In most cases he will at least at test level a nucleus of established players,he must then decide on his game plan or plans.
Then decide IF the players he has can execute this,or find those that can he also needs to be good at man management but be his own man too.
Often the most Innovative were highly successful at another level but not accepted by there national sides.Examples Carwyn James[Lions] and Vic Cavanagh [Jr,and Sr OTAGO].
Sometimes they come from succesful[relatively]lesser sides are promoted and there is conflict between Players who think they know best or the
incoming coach.
Result successful Freddie Allen,unsuccessful Graham Henry 2005 Lions,Wellington coach this year.
Sometimes the incoming coach wants to change the gameplan and needs to pick players he thinks can implement them.
Examples
Freddie Allen dropped a siege gun Goal kicker Mick Williment,for the counter attacking Fergie MacCormick.A brave call Williment was in the Don Clarke mold and a good un,who deserved more caps than he got.
Fergie was an indifferent goal kicker,Allen made him a great one ,in some respects Fred the Needle was lucky.
He inherited THE best team in the World and he had some good players coming in Sid Going,Kirkpatrick etc. he wanted to revert to the famous Kiwi style [NZRFu forces side toured Europe 1945-6].
His Manager co incidentally was Charlie [Kiwi] Sexton a great scrum half and the Kiwi`s captain together they changed from 15 years of 10man Rugby to sensible balanced game.
It is easier if are a new coach when things are going badly for your side to re-build than a succesful one.Examples John Mitchell 2002-3 took over AB`s when they were in a slump discarded established players Merthens and Cullen.Won the 3Ns 2002-3 lost 2 narrow matches to England,the RWC exit stage right.All Black Board don`t usually accept failure,good coaches ,no RWC chop.
England coaches have had to live up to there two most successful coaches in Jack Rowell and Clive Woodward.
If you are a Bok or All Black coach the axe is always hovering as expectations of the two greatest sides on the planet is high,too many losses goodbye.
Sides with less aspirations are more forgiving, the will accept indifferent results.especially if they put up a good showing the RWC.
Because as we all every other match is a friendly unless your a3Ns coach.
Also he needs especially now to know when to rest his players,and cope with niggling injuries.
Playing a half fit player in an omportant game or tournament is courting disaster.
Coaches do make the plans,and have the players on field to implement them.But he needs a good captain on the field to implement them,there needs to be flexibilty too.
Players are not robots,they need to think for themselves in RWC 2007 versus France.The Captain [inexperienced at this time] should have realised that penalties were`nt going to come. Got field position and try to drop a goal NOT be instructed from the Bench.
Australia played England last year,Penalty in front of the posts,man in the bin,close to half time behind on the board.Take 3 man back on the field start again,NO tap ball turned over try down the other end GAME OVER.
The Coach must have had kittens,last weekend Australia going through the mill 4 kickable penalties ,12 points,the difference between victory and defeat.
Lack of respect cost Australia the game treat EVERY team with the same respect that should be the Coaches motto.
NOT play weakened teams for tactical advantages because if you come unstuck you will never live it down.
Reading the media the Boks away leg is already won next week end,Australia will take 3Ns and probably the RWC.
But maybe,just maybe the Boks have`nt read the script there are a lot of very good players in the Bok Squad.
They have nothing to lose expectations are low,they can express themselves and maybe earn themselves a RWC squad spot too.

I think the title could be how much influence COULD a coach have. If a player is doing something stupid often a good coach should be able to get them to change. If they can't they could drop them.

glamorganalun wrote:Gatland had instant success by picking almost the whole Ospreys squad but we have gone down hill since implementing his robotic left right and kick game. We need another change quick as there seems to be no set moves, we keep picking a flyhalf that can't run or kick, a scrum half that can't pass and a reserve hooker that can't throw.

So what you are saying is that the way the players play on the pitch is actually the coaches responsibility and not the players?

Considering that Gatland has said for a while now that he wants the players to play what is in front of them surely if they run sideways or make poor tactical decision it is the players at fault and not the Coaches?

Good article Maestegmafia, one which I don't think there is a clear cut answer.

IMO it depends on the coach, and more importantly the player’s attitude towards their coach.

Two examples I can think of is Brian Ashton and Dean Richards

Both very different but both have been successful and to some extent failures too, one is very laid back in his approach (for some players far to laid back for their likening) the other turned out to be a bit of a tyrant, but he got results and players at the end of the day want to win things.

It's naive to think that good coaching can't have a significant impact on a teams performance and results. Players have to want to be coached to get the best from coaching. Ask a good player how important good coaching is and you'll get a consistent positive answer.

Professional rugby teams are often closely matched in talent and ability - the quality of the coaching can make the difference - either way.

It is a 'team' effort.

The Coach/es pick the team and try to employ the tactics etc but when the players cross the whitewash the coach has little responsibility.

However it then goes back to the coaches to be able to make important tactical subs or get the team to change tactics.

I think the biggest indication of a dis-agreement in recent years was the 03 WC Final when by all accounts Jonno ignored SCW instructions at half time and well the rest is History as they say.

red_stag wrote:I think the title could be how much influence COULD a coach have. If a player is doing something stupid often a good coach should be able to get them to change. If they can't they could drop them.

Agree mate. Coaches obviously have technical roles, but they must also take responsibility for the culture of the club.

maestegmafia wrote:Considering that Gatland has said for a while now that he wants the players to play what is in front of them surely if they run sideways or make poor tactical decision it is the players at fault and not the Coaches?

Do you honestly believe that he would have allowed us to play this side-to-side rugby for the last couple of seasons if it wasn't part of his gameplan?

bedfordwelsh wrote:It is a 'team' effort.

...

I think the biggest indication of a dis-agreement in recent years was the 03 WC Final when by all accounts Jonno ignored SCW instructions at half time and well the rest is History as they say.

The key to SCW's success that he had the confidence and belief in his senior players to think on the hoof on the pitch.

And you can argue that's why NZ failed in 07. The strategy was set in stone by the coach and the players were constrained by discipline.

Ireland (and Leinster) have got the requisite number of senior players to go far by replicating England's 03 model (if they are not now just a tad overcooked for this RWC).

bedfordwelsh wrote:It is a 'team' effort.

...

I think the biggest indication of a dis-agreement in recent years was the 03 WC Final when by all accounts Jonno ignored SCW instructions at half time and well the rest is History as they say.

The key to SCW's success that he had the confidence and belief in his senior players to think on the hoof on the pitch.

And you can argue that's why NZ failed in 07. The strategy was set in stone by the coach and the players were constrained by discipline.

Ireland (and Leinster) have got the requisite number of senior players to go far by replicating England's 03 model (if they are not now just a tad overcooked for this RWC).

Overcooked? Portnoy we were poor against France, Scotland, Italy and Wales. England was the only game that delivered. I am backing on fact we will build on that but I don't see the over cooked thing personally.

Maestegmafia:
I get the impression Gatland is a one trick pony as this current Spala trip illustrates, Wasps and Ireland did it now Wales are doing it. After the first England game (the first game used the Ospreys way of playing) I got the impression England knew all our line out calls and our game plan (mind it would not take a genius to work that out) as we were applying the Wasps way and many of the England players played for Wasps at the time (I think this was said at the time by the England players).

Wales are not playing what is in front of them, they are playing to a fixed plan if they don't stick to the plan they are likely to get dropped! What Gatland says in front of the camera and what he does only the players can answer! Gatland is a good PR man, he reminds me of Maggi Thatcher surround yourself with idiots and they can take the fall when things go wrong come RWC time e.g., Howley, Mc Bryde, N Jenkins. I would love to know what the players thought when Howley told the guys they have been cut from the squad while Gatland was back home in NZ i.e., he did not have to face the players, all good form team spirit I don't think.

The only time Wales have shown what they can do was the previous season whenthe plan was not working and we had to play catch up and we did that very well but that meant not following the plan, is that the reason we now have M Rees as a captain and we have not seen that kind of play, who knows?

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Considering that Gatland has said for a while now that he wants the players to play what is in front of them surely if they run sideways or make poor tactical decision it is the players at fault and not the Coaches?

Do you honestly believe that he would have allowed us to play this side-to-side rugby for the last couple of seasons if it wasn't part of his gameplan?

I honestly believe no coach is stupid enough to suggest that a lateral attack is a worthwhile use of quality ball. But I do believe that when a player tactically hits a brick wall and cant see options that they make those kinds of mistakes, especially a slow halfback pairing like Wales have.

Players kicking good ball away cant be coached and cant be tactical. It is the decision of the player who kicks to kick when they do and not the coach.

Hmm. Stag, Ireland had a disturbing first four games in the 6Ns but in the England game they showed their true potential. There were also some iffy reversals on the way.

But my main point is that the '11 squad has a spine of experience and new talented players (like SOB and Sexy) to take them forward.

I can see Ireland replicating Leinster's final HEC performance an reaching at least the semis. Top class senior players are essential for success.

On the opposite side of the Coin to Wales we have the All Blacks, an interesting comparison as two of the All Blacks coaches formerly coached Wales.

The All Blacks are the most successful team in world rugby always have been. Graham Henry made a remarkable difference to Wales at the start of his tenure, he also coached a decent Lions effort. Steve Hansen took a long time but finally got Wales playing some superb rugby.

Is that great coaching or talented players for either Wales or the All Blacks that garnered coaches those results?

Maesteg, when a player like Stephen Jones kicks away so much more ball for Wales than he does for the Scarlets, I'm inclined to think that he's following orders rather than choosing to do it.

Is Wales' problem that for the past few years that they've had no plan B?

The 05/08 model has been sussed (but can still work on occasion). But there is no way that Wales (like the ABs v in 07) would stray from the draconian game plan set by the coach.

I would say that coaches are very important. They pick the players, they choose the strategy,they choose the training etc. Fans will be more understanding if a coach has less to work with in terms of quality and resources. It's important to at least match expectations.

Good environments and good coaches will improve players. Saracens are a very good recent example of a coache's success. BV and Mark Mccall have taken an underperforming mediocre AP side and turned it into one of the best in the league. They have completely changed the culture of Saracens and turned the side into a formidable unit.

The side has been accused of being boring (deservedly so) but the gameplan put in place has been brutally effective in the AP.

Gatland is not a great coach. It is because he doesn't understand his own side. He doesn't adapt. Defence can win you trophies but only when coupled with other aspects like putting pressure on the opposition and good kicking.

Gatland is stuck in the past. The glory days of Wasps and Wales are over. He needs to register this.

"Is Wales' problem that for the past few years that they've had no plan B?"

What's been plan A ??

offload wrote:"Is Wales' problem that for the past few years that they've had no plan B?"

What's been plan A ??

"Don't Panic "

More seriously, if the players are doing what the coach wants then they need to be dropped. If the way the Welsh players are players isn't how Gatland wants them to play they need to be dropped. Unless it's a stepping stone to getting them playing how he wants them to play.

What about England.

Last year against France in the Six nations Martin Johnson picked Ben Foden, Mark Cueto, Mike Tindall, Riki Flutey, Chris Ashton, Toby Flood, Danny Care, Tim Payne, Dylan Hartley, Dan Cole, Simon Shaw, Louis Deacon, Joe Worsley, Lewis Moody (c), Nick Easter, Replacements, Steve Thompson,David Wilson, Tom Palmer, James Haskell, Ben Youngs, Jonny Wilkinson, Mathew Tait.

That is basically the make up of his current team, the difference in the performance between that team and the one that had played under Johnson for the previous ten games or so was remarkable. That team then went on to beat the Aussies in Australia, perform well in the Autumn and win this years Six Nations. The previous team some fans had been calling for Johnson to go, that the team wasnt working and changes had to be made in the coaching staff.

Not saying they are the finished article, but dropping players that didnt work like like Wilkinson for Flood, Armitage for Foden seemed to make the team different.

I dont think that was coaching but it was selection.

maestegmafia unfortunately you cannot leave out being absolutely smashed to smithereens by South Africa and Ireland. MJ has been rescued by an ever improving pool of England players to pick from. He is still living in the past by continually picking Worsley,Payne,Shaw and foreign journeyman like Waldrom,Fourie,Flutey and Hape.

A good coach is part leader and part psychologist.

As a leader, he has to set the standards, the culture and the strategy of the group. As a psychologist, he has to be very good at reading his players, knowing what makes them tick, empathasing with them, knowing where their "go" buttons are in terms of getting the very best out of his players. He is able to have them believe they can achieve anything.

A team with decent players, but with no or only a few stars, can be turned into a great one through the coach. If you look at Ewen McKenzie at the Reds. 2 years ago they were amoung the worst teams in S14. When he took over last year they finished 5th and were the only team to beat each of the top 4 sides. This year they won the whole thing. McKenzie is rightly getting a lot of that credit having turned the whole organisation around. Why were they successful. As several players said it was about belief - belief they could beat anyone.

I agree with Red Stag, the article should have said 'could' rather than 'do'.

If the coach has little or no influence then he is in the wrong job. Having a lot of influence though doesn't equate with a lot of success. That depends on what players he has to work with. If he has no money he can't recruit big names and developing them through academies takes a long time.

Rob Baxter has done wonders with a squad few other teams would pick any players from.

The Great Aukster wrote:I agree with Red Stag, the article should have said 'could' rather than 'do'.

If the coach has little or no influence then he is in the wrong job. Having a lot of influence though doesn't equate with a lot of success. That depends on what players he has to work with. If he has no money he can't recruit big names and developing them through academies takes a long time.

Rob Baxter has done wonders with a squad few other teams would pick any players from.

Actually I was hoping that the thread would lead more to discussion about the credited performance of coaches and their responsibility for the teams results...!

Coaches are very important indeed.

I know for a solid fact that a number of Edinburgh players only stayed at the club at the time because Robinson was coaching.

Popular rumour also has it that a key consideration in O'Connor and Beale jumping ship to the Rebels next season was that they wanted a shot at working with the legend that is Rod McQueen (even in his possibly reduced role).

"Coaches are very important indeed."


On the flip side, remember that Marc Lievremont has won a grand slam as a coach.

maestegmafia wrote:

glamorganalun wrote:Gatland had instant success by picking almost the whole Ospreys squad but we have gone down hill since implementing his robotic left right and kick game. We need another change quick as there seems to be no set moves, we keep picking a flyhalf that can't run or kick, a scrum half that can't pass and a reserve hooker that can't throw.

So what you are saying is that the way the players play on the pitch is actually the coaches responsibility and not the players?

Considering that Gatland has said for a while now that he wants the players to play what is in front of them surely if they run sideways or make poor tactical decision it is the players at fault and not the Coaches?

Alun
How can anyone who watches rugby on a regular basis think that a player e.g.

MIKE PHILLIPS - plays the same for his region and country
STEPHEN JONES - plays in an entirely different manner for region and country............... Scarlets are superb in offensive when he is orchestrating the forwards to backs combos

And has the gall to say it is not a coaching thing but a player thing, Phillips can only play one way, Jones can play any way a coach wants

Its funny Alun most people who have played this game would realise you dont have to be a graceful powerful running back, ala Henson, Hook but 10s Jones, Townsend, Carter 10s at the coalface produce attractive produce inovative rugby by using their rugby brain

Flyhalf:
This thread is aimed at coaches but it appears you agree with me the players are doing what the coaches demand in the Welsh squad. In the case of Wales flyhalves they kick the ball away time and time again, S Jones to put it mildly is not the best kicker out of hand (touch kicking, kick off's clearance kicks, cross kicks, distance) is accurate in my opinion. Your comment that S Jones can play anyway the coach wants is rubbish, he plays well at his club level but at international level with a different game plan (a poor one) he is not the man best suited for the job i.e., if Wales are going to continue the same game plan implemented since 2009.

The coaches are responsible for the game plan and it is also their responsibility to select the best players to suit the plan. I don't think we have (to date) had a good and varied game plan and I don't think some players are best suited to the plan! If Wales change the style of play to the Dragons or Scarlets style then S Jones may be better suited but still not my choice.

glamorganalun wrote:Flyhalf:
This thread is aimed at coaches but it appears you agree with me the players are doing what the coaches demand in the Welsh squad. In the case of Wales flyhalves they kick the ball away time and time again, S Jones to put it mildly is not the best kicker out of hand (touch kicking, kick off's clearance kicks, cross kicks, distance) is accurate in my opinion. Your comment that S Jones can play anyway the coach wants is rubbish, he plays well at his club level but at international level with a different game plan (a poor one) he is not the man best suited for the job i.e., if Wales are going to continue the same game plan implemented since 2009.

The coaches are responsible for the game plan and it is also their responsibility to select the best players to suit the plan. I don't think we have (to date) had a good and varied game plan and I don't think some players are best suited to the plan! If Wales change the style of play to the Dragons or Scarlets style then S Jones may be better suited but still not my choice.

Players can't be doing what the coaches want if they are not winning. Wales have won five of their last 19 games.

You can take three things from that in my mind. One that they are under strict orders and what they are doing is wrong tactically. Or two that they aren't implimenting what the coaches want correctly. Or they are the wrong players

maestegmafia wrote:Players can't be doing what the coaches want if they are not winning.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. A team can do exactly what the coach asks them to do but it doesn't guarantee them victory!

Maestegmafia:

May be a combination of all, One that they are under strict orders and what they are doing is wrong tactically and two the coaches have selected the wrong players to implement the wrong tactics, e.g playing a kicking game with a non kicking flyhalf, a hooker that can't throw and players playing out of position.

Players can't be doing what the coaches want if they are not winning. Wales have won five of their last 19 games.

You can take three things from that in my mind. One that they are under strict orders and what they are doing is wrong tactically. Or two that they aren't implimenting what the coaches want correctly. Or they are the wrong players

Or the opposition is a better team. What am I saying, this is Wales we're talking about. Yep...blame the coach.

If it is so obvious that something is wrong with the Welsh gameplan why aren't the Welsh players explaining this to the coaches? The coaches cannot take sole responsibility for the failure of a side.

A good team adapts if things are going wrong.

Players need to be able to think on their feet and adapt to ever changing conditions. From what you are saying it seems the Welsh side doesn't do this.

You can create a winning formula but there is no guarantee that it will last as the opposition will do their utmost to counter this.

Gatland is a poor coach because his strategies and tactics are ineffective and never change.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Players can't be doing what the coaches want if they are not winning. Wales have won five of their last 19 games.

You can take three things from that in my mind. One that they are under strict orders and what they are doing is wrong tactically. Or two that they aren't implimenting what the coaches want correctly. Or they are the wrong players

Or the opposition is a better team. What am I saying, this is Wales we're talking about. Yep...blame the coach.

Tell you what how about sending Henry over to Wales post RWC and Gatland over to NZ and see if you start moaning about him 18 months later.



I don't think that the coaches is always to blame for bad runs of form, nor do i think that he is solely responsible for any success. However I do think that you can tell whether or not it is the coach or players (especially at international level) after a second/third season in charge. Using Wales for example, we were at our lowest post RWC 07, and a new coach came in and said play for your shirts and the boys did. Since then there have been a number of players who have out shone the current occupent of either role in the National side, who have not been given the chance (unless the current shirt holder is injured). So when Wales fail I tend to blame Gatland more than the players, but I also do think the players need to show more passion and if need be say sod the game plan.

Another one I have noticed, is that with the Welsh team there was a real emphasis on defence and not missing tackles, and then I have seen a handful of players not attempt the tackle, almost as if a 'missed tackle' stat would go against them more than 'a not bothered to attempt a tackle' would. I think that when you see things like that it does indicate that the specific coach does have an influence in the players decision as they want to play for their nation and the only way to keep doing so is to play to the way the coach has said or else be exiled (Mr Popham).

beshocked wrote:If it is so obvious that something is wrong with the Welsh gameplan why aren't the Welsh players explaining this to the coaches?

Some coaches would see that as welcome feedback and work with the players on what should be changed. Other coaches would see it as the next step to insubordination, ignore the advice and look unfavourably on the player/s concerned.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

beshocked wrote:If it is so obvious that something is wrong with the Welsh gameplan why aren't the Welsh players explaining this to the coaches?

Some coaches would see that as welcome feedback and work with the players on what should be changed. Other coaches would see it as the next step to insubordination, ignore the advice and look unfavourably on the player/s concerned.

Ain't it called Player Power in Wales?

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

beshocked wrote:If it is so obvious that something is wrong with the Welsh gameplan why aren't the Welsh players explaining this to the coaches?

Some coaches would see that as welcome feedback and work with the players on what should be changed. Other coaches would see it as the next step to insubordination, ignore the advice and look unfavourably on the player/s concerned.

Either way a poor coach is someone who doesn't realise losing continually is wrong. Also who doesn't listen to feedback when it is desperately needed.

Wales have not progressed as a side since winning the grandslam in 2008. That's a big big problem. That is Gatland's fault. When did Wales last beat one of the big 5 - France,England and the tri nations?

beshocked - thinking about it, do the players really need to say to Gats that things are going wrong? Anyone can see that things are not working. All he needs to do is watch Scrum V or read a paper, or visit here to get heaps of suggestions on what he could do to improve things.

Scarletspiderman:

Spot on but maybe he does not watch scrum V or read the papers I am not sure his coaches can read!

glamorganalun wrote:Flyhalf:
This thread is aimed at coaches but it appears you agree with me the players are doing what the coaches demand in the Welsh squad. In the case of Wales flyhalves they kick the ball away time and time again, S Jones to put it mildly is not the best kicker out of hand (touch kicking, kick off's clearance kicks, cross kicks, distance) is accurate in my opinion. Your comment that S Jones can play anyway the coach wants is rubbish, he plays well at his club level but at international level with a different game plan (a poor one) he is not the man best suited for the job i.e., if Wales are going to continue the same game plan implemented since 2009.

The coaches are responsible for the game plan and it is also their responsibility to select the best players to suit the plan. I don't think we have (to date) had a good and varied game plan and I don't think some players are best suited to the plan! If Wales change the style of play to the Dragons or Scarlets style then S Jones may be better suited but still not my choice.

Alun
Why do you say that Jones can't change his game, there is clear proof he can ............he plays entirely different at regional level, if you say thats rubiish then explain your rationale.

If you think another welsh 10 can suit Gatlands current tactics then tell us WITH REASONS who they are

If you watch again in the 2010/11 season in both colours of red (Scarlets & Wales) you will have seen Jones put in try creating cross kicks for his wingers I doubt very much there are many current welsh 10s with that awareness, his general kicking game is much more accurate than both Biggar and Hook, as is his passing distribution . However I agree with you his kick-offs are poor and his distance is one of the shortest. However Gatlands tactics ALA Wasps and Ireland is for a structured game, forward driven with fast distribution from the scrum (ALA Rob Howley at his Wasps days), means that an aware structured 10 must be in place to mix it up, he doesnt need to pump it far up the field, he just needs to draw men onto him and gain the yards and offload very much like Carter is utilised with the ABs.

Gatland, like Hanson and Henry before him are sent to Wales by the NZSRS (the same unit responsible for poaching child islanders with good rugby genes) in order to keep Welsh rugby down.

It follows a formula, court public adoration by telling the players the correct game plan early on, win a few games, maybe a grandslam or a 6N title.

Then, tell them The Wrong Gameplan and keep them in the wilderness.

It's so sneaky.