Lions coach Gatland riled by 'Warrenball' tag
Warren Gatland did not take kindly to a question about his perceived tactical limitations ahead of the British and Irish Lions' tour match against Blues in Auckland on Wednesday.
As he addressed the media before the clash with the Super Rugby franchise at Eden Park, one journalist suggested Gatland may be keen to answer the critics who claim he relies too heavily on a physical approach to the game.
Rather than gain favour with the tourists' coach, the reporter swiftly found himself on the wrong side of the formidable 53-year-old.
Clearly annoyed, Gatland said: "What do you mean by one kind of way?"
The reporter, suddenly uncertain, replied: "Physicality and directness."
To which Gatland shot back: "When did that way start? You don't know the answer to that, do you?
"Was that when we were successful at Wasps or was it when I was coaching Waikato and won the Air New Zealand Cup? I don't know, when did a certain style change? If you can answer the question to that I can potentially answer the question.
"A few years ago, [former Bath and London Irish director of rugby] Brian Smith coined the phrase 'Warrenball', whether that was because he was jealous of how much success we had I don't know.
"We had a group of players who came through Wales at the time who ended up being pretty big, physical players.
"And so, the modern game of rugby is about trying to get across the gain line, trying to get front-foot ball and playing to space if that's possible. If you can give me [a time] when things started to change - I don't know."
Blues, or perhaps his own players in training, will hope they are not on the end of a Gatland backlash in the coming days, while the travelling press pack are likely to think twice before daring to discuss 'Warrenball' again during the Lions' stay in New Zealand.
Latest Comments
What’s new its a common occurrence, just the journos out there expecting a negative spin. The outcome will be beneficial to jordie and Leinster. The home grown lads hav got some experience to step up to and be more competitive, that or spend the 6 months keeping the bench warm.
Go to commentsI’m all for speeding up the game. But can we be certain that the slowness of the game contributed to fans walking out? I’m not so sure. Super rugby largely suffered from most fans only being able to, really, follow the games played in their own time zone. So at least a third of the fan base wasn’t engaged at any point in time. As a Saffer following SA teams in the URC - I now watch virtually every European game played on the weekend. In SR, I wouldn’t be bothered to follow the games being played on the other side of the world, at weird hours, if my team wasn’t playing. I now follow the whole tournament and not just the games in my time zone. Second, with New Zealand teams always winning. It’s like formula one. When one team dominates, people lose interest. After COVID, with SA leaving and Australia dipping in form, SR became an even greater one horse race. Thats why I think Japan’s league needs to get in the mix. The international flavor of those teams could make for a great spectacle. But surely if we believe that shaving seconds off lost time events in rugby is going to draw fans back, we should be shown some figures that supports this idea before we draw any major conclusions. Where are the stats that shows these changes have made that sort of impact? We’ve measured down to the average no. Of seconds per game. Where the measurement of the impact on the fanbase? Does a rugby “fan” who lost interest because of ball in play time suddenly have a revived interest because we’ve saved or brought back into play a matter of seconds or a few minutes each game? I doubt it. I don’t thinks it’s even a noticeable difference to be impactful. The 20 min red card idea. Agreed. Let’s give it a go. But I think it’s fairer that the player sent off is substituted and plays no further part in the game as a consequence.
Go to comments