'I have had a couple of discussions but there is definitely nothing concrete'
Warren Gatland is waiting for a "concrete" offer before deciding on his next coaching venture after Wales.
The New Zealander will oversee his final Six Nations campaign before leaving his post after 12 years following the Rugby World Cup in Japan.
Gatland this week revealed he has held informal talks about the possibility of leading the British and Irish Lions for a third consecutive tour when they visit South Africa in 2021.
In terms of a permanent position, Gatland is hoping to take a short break after the World Cup before aiming to take a post in New Zealand, while also refusing to rule out another stint in the Premiership or venture to France or Japan.
"I have had a couple of discussions but there is definitely nothing concrete. Maybe at the end of the World Cup I will be unemployed," he said.
"I was looking to take a few months off and then start looking in the middle of 2020, potentially do some Super Rugby in New Zealand if there was an opportunity.
"But I am also aware that there are not a lot of jobs in New Zealand. That might not be an option.
"So [it could be] back in club rugby in the Premiership, or France or Japan, or something like that."
Under Gatland, Wales are two-time Six Nations Grand Slam winners and have another title to their name, while they reached the semi-finals of the 2011 World Cup.
"I take a lot of pride in the fact we go out there and it doesn't matter who we play, they know they are in for one hell of a tough game," Gatland added.
"I've watched and been to a number of games at the old Millennium Stadium and seen the All Blacks put out a second-string team against Wales. There is no way they would do that now.
"We've put ourselves in positions where we should have beaten Australia on more occasions, but we've been pretty good against South Africa in winning five of our last six games.
"Success for me is not always about winning, it's about over-achieving.
"If you look at [Premier League] football and a team like Bournemouth, they've been successful because they are over-achieving in terms of what people expect.
"If Cardiff City stay up this season they will have been successful and over-achieved because everyone expects them to get relegated. That's the way I look at things.
"For me it's not always about winning, it's about becoming hard to beat, and if you do that you get a sense of pride in how you do things. Then it's about winning more often and developing your game."
Latest Comments
Haha yeah, agreed. Remember Schmidt wasn't heavily involved at that point right? I agree to me it did look more organic, like it players playing naturally, devoid of a lot of the coaching garbage (that includes what Schmidt likes to do, he would have known to be hands off, he can't do much in one week).
Go to commentsA deep question!
First, the point would be you wouldn't have a share of those penalities if you didn't choose good scrummers right.
So having incentive to scrummaging well gives more space in the field through having less mobile players.
This balance is what we always strive to come back to being the focus of any law change right.
So to bring that back to some of the points in this article, if changing the current 'offense' structure of scrums, to say not penalizing a team that's doing their utmost to hold up the scrum (allowing play to continue even if they did finally succumb to collapsing or w/e for example), how are we going to stop that from creating a situation were a coach can prioritize the open play abilities of their tight five, sacrificing pure scrummaging, because they won't be overly punished by having a weak scrum?
But to get back on topic, yes, that balance is too skewed, the prevalence has been too much/frequent.
At the highest level, with the best referees and most capable props, it can play out appealingly well. As you go down the levels, the coaching of tactics seems to remain high, but the ability of the players to adapt and hold their scrum up against that guy boring, or the skill of the ref in determining what the cause was and which of those two to penalize, quickly degrades the quality of the contest and spectacle imo (thank good european rugby left that phase behind!)
Personally I have some very drastic changes in mind for the game that easily remedy this prpblem (as they do for all circumstances), but the scope of them is too great to bring into this context (some I have brought in were applicable), and without them I can only resolve to come up with lots of 'finicky' like those here. It is easy to understand why there is reluctance in their uptake.
I also think it is very folly of WR to try and create this 'perfect' picture of simple laws that can be used to cover all aspects of the game, like 'a game to be played on your feet' etc, and not accept it needs lots of little unique laws like these. I'd be really happy to create some arbitrary advantage for the scrum victors (similar angle to yours), like if you can make your scrum go forward, that resets the offside line from being the ball to the back foot etc, so as to create a way where your scrum wins a foot be "5 meters back" from the scrum becomes 7, or not being able to advance forward past the offisde line (attack gets a free run at you somehow, or devide the field into segments and require certain numbers to remain in the other sgements (like the 30m circle/fielders behind square requirements in cricket). If you're defending and you go forward then not just is your 9 still allowed to harras the opposition but the backline can move up from the 5m line to the scrum line or something.
Make it a real mini game, take your solutions and making them all circumstantial. Having differences between quick ball or ball held in longer, being able to go forward, or being pushed backwards, even to where the scrum stops and the ref puts his arm out in your favour. Think of like a quick tap scenario, but where theres no tap. If the defending team collapses the scrum in honest attempt (even allow the attacking side to collapse it after gong forward) the ball can be picked up (by say the eight) who can run forward without being allowed to be tackled until he's past the back of the scrum for example. It's like a little mini picture of where the defence is scrambling back onside after a quick tap was taken.
The purpose/intent (of any such gimmick) is that it's going to be so much harder to stop his momentum, and subsequent tempo, that it's a really good advantage for having such a powerful scrum. No change of play to a lineout or blowing of the whistle needed.
Go to comments