1
'Hindsight is brilliant': Biggar's sharp words for Lions who criticised Gatland
By
Ian Cameron
Wales standoff Dan Biggar has questioned why certain British & Irish Lions teammates didn’t speak out during the tour if – as they claim – the leadership of Warren Gatland was so tactically errant.
ADVERTISEMENT
Finn Russell and Iain Henderson have both been critical of the Lions’ conservative ‘meet fire with fire’ approach to playing the Springboks, a tactic that ultimately saw the tourist cede the series 2 – 1 to the hosts.
Speaking in an interview in the Daily Mail Biggar, who was Gatland’s choice for the Test series at 10, suggested hindsight was 20:20 version for the teammates who criticized the New Zealand Lions’ guru.
“We all bought into it at the time,” he said. “If they had such a strong opinion about it, maybe they could have voiced it at the time.”
“I’ve never made a mistake watching a game back on a sofa. Hindsight is brilliant; you never make a mistake.
“I think the general consensus of the group was frustration and disappointment. That probably caused some lads to say that.
“But you’re always wise after the event, aren’t you? People are going to do interviews and give their opinions and they are entitled to them, but for me there was just frustration in the group that we couldn’t finish the job after going 1-0 up.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Biggar also questioned how good the rugby has been in the Rugby Championship, likening it to the rugby that was panned as boring just two months ago during the Lions tour.
“I was watching the New Zealand-South Africa game last weekend and people were saying what a brilliant game it was, but I didn’t think it was.
“It had intensity and drama, but if you actually looked at the skill level and the style of play, certainly from South Africa, it was very similar (to the Lions series).
“But all of a sudden, because New Zealand were playing, it turned into a brilliant game of rugby, which I didn’t think it was.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Totally agree regarding players not speaking up at the time. Not so sure about the view that everyone thought the NZ v SA game was great. Who are these people? I watched and thought it was turgid at best. Any comments I've since read (mostly from the NZ media) thought likewise.
SA did what they did during the Lions series and made it impossible for NZ to play a running game or get any momentum. NZ couldn't find an answer to it and had to rely on the penalty in the 77th minute. However, unlike the Lions, they wanted to be expansive, they wanted to play but on this occasion it didn't happen. Proof of this was the captain, Ardie Savea, spurning kickable points from penalties and going for touch instead, a move that didn't produce the desired outcome but showed intent.
And this is why they are so appealing to watch because EVERY game that is their intent. Gatland, from day one, just wanted to match SA rather than trust the talents and skill set of the players he had. Why did a less talented Australia put the Boks to the sword twice with what was a less talented group of players? By refusing to compromise, by being true to the style they and their coach want them to use.
If a team is a mirror image of its coach then is anyone surprised that the three tests in SA were so dull?