Gulf in Style

Firstly congratulations to Wales for pulling off a hard fought victory over the English on the weekend. England utterly dominated possession and territory but simply spent 80 minutes trying to run into the nearest defender. Even with an extra man for 20 minutes England seemed unwilling to attack space, or use any width or just stop telegraphing the inside crash ball. Wales by contrast with only a ten minute spell with the ball manufactured a try featuring superb, patient build up work, width, pace, controlled aggression and guile to leave the English defense no chance.

But the thing I wanted to comment on was the breakdown.

Wales and England seemed to spend the entire game in a Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat penalty exchange, where it seemed we couldn't string two phases together without someone infringing in some way in the contact zone. We had 2 yellow cards, and probably should have seen 2 more against Wales and 2 against England, but for the mercy of Rolland's judgement.

Allan Rolland, as restrained and patient as he was, still found the need to issue a staggering 31 penalties, stopping play more than once every two minutes in open play.

Roll forward to the South Africa v Australia game and we witnessed much more accuracy in that area. The technique was just from a different planet. Both teams seemed to know when to attack the break down, both teams stayed on their feet better and obeyed the referees guidance with regard to releasing the ball, the tackled player and the angle of entry.

The outcome? a much faster game with only 18 penalties.

I despair really, if team's will continue to prefer to give away a penalty every two minutes and happily wear yellow cards then the RWC will be yet another boring old kick fest with score lines featuring multiples of 3.

And finally, on this same issue of trying to keep the game slow. If teams decide to field guys with fitness levels that perhaps are not where they should be, I think the referees have to take a much harder line on the gamesmanship around slowing the game down. Steve Thompson in particular, when not standing up in scrums or otherwise blatantly scrummaging illegally with impunity, seemed to be sitting down sweating heavily and holding up the set piece. I would like to see referees issue immediate free kicks to stop this kind of time wasting.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Wales and England seemed to spend the entire game in a Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat penalty exchange

I love the "naughty word" replacement here. Whoever came up with that one, take a bow!

GreyGhost - for once I find myself agreeing with everything you say.

Great article.

Ouch that hurt.

TheGreyGhost wrote:
where it seemed we couldn't string two phases together without someone infringing in some way in the contact zone.

"We"? I though you were one of "them"

Sorry, I should clarify that I was using "we" in the collective neutral observer sense , rather than indicating parochial alignment.

Unbelievably, it's a fair assessment. But if the point was to remind us all that there is a relative difference in class between the NH and SH sides, then its been done over and over and over.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Sorry, I should clarify that I was using "we" in the collective neutral observer sense , rather than indicating parochial alignment.

OK aside form the neutral observer thing Im with you on this. Its was just a shabby perfermonace form both sides. Missing Youngs and Ashton isnt sufficent excuse for Englands backplay.

Couldn't agree more though you should not worry about the WC being a kick fest. The SH teams attack the breakdown and commit in a different way to NH teams and it leads to a better game. From a Welsh POV one of the most promising things is that at last we were counter rucking and attacking without the ball. The SH teams have been doing this for a while and whoever wishes to conquer this WC is going to have to operate like that IMO.

It will be the counter rucking WC - and yes S Thompson was allowed to get away with way too much on Saturday to the detriment of the game. Unfortunately, referees are effected by what team they believe is better at the scrum and often fail to get the calls right.

Agree completely GG, the breakdown in the Eng-Wales game was a very schoolboy-like 'see what you can get away with' style contest. That game probably should have finished up with 12 players a side. The general handling in both games were as bad as each other though.

Yeah the 3N game had a lot of errors and was boring to watch. Sure it was a high-pressure game and pressure leads to errors but it just didn't seem to have the intensity and focus of other 3N games. Spose the fact that both sides weren't playing well was good in that the game was close.

This is why having Stephen Ferris available for Ireland is crucial. He is the reason our breakdown is so efficient and the ball, particularly first phase ball we get to our backs as a result, is of a high standard.

Could be the difference in a good or bad WC for Ireland.

Would never have thought Holly Wilaboobie was a 'naughty' word, there're blue jubblies for a start...

even then, it is a triffle inoffensive methinks

LOL!!

give up!!!

Great White wrote:Unbelievably, it's a fair assessment. But if the point was to remind us all that there is a relative difference in class between the NH and SH sides, then its been done over and over and over.

I was actually having a subtle swing at the inconsistency in the refereeing. But, fair enough.

But Wayne Barnes wasn't officiating, so how were we supposed to know?

I liked the way that the penalty count was something like 18-19 but Wales were shown two yellow cards for persistent infringing. It seemed like once Wales scored a try, Rolland figured out they were going to win and the intensity went out of his scrutiny.

Wales were shown yellow cards for persistent infringement, but regardless of whether England were equally guilty, Rolland had not warned them. As we all know, England were dominant for most of the first half, its only natural that the ref should favour the attacking team. We see it time and time again. Rolland warned Welsh players several times and then yellow carded two of them. Tough.

Exactly, but he warned them about 5 minutes into the second half, when it looked like he was about to whip out a yellow, but then stuck it back in his pocket. England conceded most of their penalties from that point in - and yet no sanction. England were dominant in the set piece and conceded most of their penalties at the breakdown for sealing off in attack, or not rolling away in defense.

It seems like they dodged a bullet keeping 15 men of the field to me.

Not really, or maybe. He obviously thought about yellow carding Banahan but then because he hadn't yet warned England, decided against it. The rest of his decisions were inconsistent, and they were for both sides, so what.

The rest of his decisions were inconsistent

We agree then. That's what I thought too.

so what.

We all want consistency don't we?

Well, one thing's for sure, you certainly are.

This isn't about Wales or England or NH v SH, it's about referees between consistent between games, and during games.

Surely that's important with the RWC around the corner?

They never have been consistent and they never will be, no amount of moaning will fix the problem. The only way consistency could be certain, is if the matches were reffed by clones or automatons - got any? Didn't think so.

That's a great attitude. If it's broke, don't bother fixing it.

Rubbish. To remedy the problem, one would have to change human nature. Do you think rugby is the only sport where refereeing is inconsistent? I'm sure we'd all love to see your master plan to erradicate inconsistency in sport officialdom

Man, you are a real motivational guru aren't you?

"Well lad, no one's ever run under 10s for the 100 meters. You can't change humans. Forget it. Have a pint instead."

"Moon? Land on the moon? you must be joking."

We must all continue to struggle against our own limitations. That includes referees.

There's a difference between development of physical achievement and synaptic evolution and well you know it. Or maybe you don't. Probably not.

Yes, now that we have fire and the wheel, why bother having objectives.

You have fire and wheels in New Zealand? I'm impressed.

Great White wrote:You have fire and wheels in New Zealand? I'm impressed.

Wow. Did you think that up all by yourself?

I can grudgingly accept differences in skill level between NH and SH when i comes to handling, awareness of space etc as these are taught and embedded at a young age. We know there are major deficiencies in England at school and club grades in the quality of coaching of these skills and it'll take many years to catch up if ever.

What i can't accept is why we are so inept at the breakdown, surely this can be taught to players no matter the age. Why are we so bad at it?

Its not that England are inept at the breakdown, just that their approach to it can vary alarmingly from game to game. Unfortunately, their approach on Saturday was lacsadasical.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yes, now that we have fire and the wheel, why bother having objectives.

Coming form a antion that steadfastly refuses to update its shirt colour....

Or win a WC in the professional era.

You appear to be implying that the inconsistency was to England’s (gasp) favour? I think Rolland had an off game in general e.g. his constant leniency on the Welsh scrum was a result of indecisiveness on his part as was the complete lack of control on the breakdown (Welsh sealing off etc. – just trying to add some ying to your yang). More yellow cards and a penalty try could/probably should have resulted during the game – against both teams. However this is all ifs, buts and maybes.

England were dire in the backs and Wales had nothing for 75% of the game and the result it was clear sign that the two teams are not where they will need to be to do well in the RWC. As to discussing referee inconsistency - I remember reading that each international performance is reviewed and the referee is evaluated and any action taken to help improve them in the future? This seems reasonable to me. As already stated, errors occur and these can only be addressed after the game not usually during the game.

"the breakdown, surely this can be taught to players no matter the age."

No more than the handling and space awareness; the breakdown is a difficult skill that takes years to learn - it is why players like McCaw are so valuable and so highly rated/hated.

It may be semantics but i'd say we are inept if we've no consistency in that area. Its happened too often in the last 12 months now. Why are the coaches and battery of behind the scene's analysts failing to get the strategy right, or is it the players themselves who are incapable of reading how a game is flowing and doing something to resolve it.

Its probably a little of both TBH. Inept may be the right word, but surely ineptitude would represent a constant failure to deliver, rather than an inconsistent one?

"No more than the handling and space awareness; the breakdown is a difficult skill that takes years to learn - it is why players like McCaw are so valuable and so highly rated/hated"

I never played the game to any great level or have much ability so i'm willing to bow to your greater knowledge. It just seems to me that there is no great skill to commiting numbers to the breakdown - which we often failed to do or avoiding sealing off and giving away penalties - which we often did.

Like you I am no pro but it is the thinking and realisation behind when to commit numbers and when not to that is a result of experience. The pack leader should be monitoring this in any given game and telling his fellow forwards to adjust to what is happening on the pitch (i.e. if they are disrupting ball commit more to the ruck and if they are hanging back then obtain quick ball and look to drive to suck in players). England are getting it wrong and seem to not react when a team strats targeting the breakdown with greater numbers/ferocity.

In my previous post I was referring more to the skill in getting yourself in the right position at the right time and making yourself a nuisance to the opposition as opposed to the experience to know when to commit numbers. For a master class in a team judging breakdown numbers just watch NZ - the added danger with them is that their backs also seem to have this feel for how and when to commit to the breakdown and thus they are very difficult to maintain possession against and to play fast ball against.

the content in this thread is akin to an Islington dinner party(or so I've been told what Islington dinner parties are like)-all yap and "spacial awareness" -what we need are some good wums and abuse

Great White wrote:Wales were shown yellow cards for persistent infringement, but regardless of whether England were equally guilty, Rolland had not warned them. As we all know, England were dominant for most of the first half, its only natural that the ref should favour the attacking team. We see it time and time again. Rolland warned Welsh players several times and then yellow carded two of them. Tough.

the thing was the card for roberts-he was the tackler, and trust me i know this rule inside out, the tackler is allowed to get off his feet after eleasing the player and grab the ball all of which roberts did. Then phillips was very harsh as he wasnt offside. i dont see where the other two yellows for wales would have come from.

ref was poor tbh, didnt manage the scrums correctly when england were boaring in, and didnt manage the breakdown fairly- and whoever said about it being like a school game get away whatever you can do- thats what you do at international, try to gain an advantage- why are the all blacks so good?

It's true that England scrummaged illegally. Particularly Thompson.

The point about it just "being tough luck" that the ref was inconsistent is nonsense. They shouldn't be, and we're entitled as spectators to point out their mistakes. This forum would be plenty empty if nobody was supposed to comment on contentious issues during internationals.

England must be worried though at their inability to manufacture a try. Much was made of England's 13 man defence against an NZ team that *did* score tries prior to 2003. For England to fail to score against 14 men for 20 minutes with something like 75% of the ball and territory would be a worry for any side. I just don't see who other than Ashton they've got to bring in. Personally if I were MJ I'd forgo one of his battering ram options in favour of a ball player like JSD.

MJ should also be worried that for all the set piece security, this must be the most impotent England pack in a decade in terms of getting go forward in the close quarters. The maul was ineffective and they couldn't look after the ball close to the Welsh try line.

They need to look at the first Welsh try in the Twickenham game and ask themselves why they can't be patient and secure and strike accurately like Wales managed.

welshy824 wrote:and whoever said about it being like a school game get away whatever you can do- thats what you do at international, try to gain an advantage- why are the all blacks so good?

The point is they clearly weren't getting away with it, they were getting penalised into oblivion. I guess when England had that much ball and were applying that much pressure you have to do something to try to get your hands on the ball. I have no problem with teams pushing the boundaries but at times they were so far over the boundary they were sitting in the neighbours living room in their underpants. I don't know who it was but in the dying minutes when Wales were under the pump on their own line and a Welsh hand came over and knocked the ball into touch... if that's not a professional foul I don't know what is. That said, I think Wales did brilliantly to hold England out, they did what they had to do and came away with the win.

The All Blacks are so good because, amongst other things, they hide their indiscretions a bit better (that, and the refs are blinded by their collective magnificence). Also it's possible, as distasteful as it may sound, that they are just better.

"For England to fail to score against 14 men for 20 minutes with something like 75% of the ball and territory would be a worry for any side."

Absolutely, they were abysmal in attack and had no answers. It draws derision when the past is brought up but here goes; in the 6N and the AIs England showed they are fully capable of being very precise and dangerous with the ball in hand. The worry for England is that they have not shown this precision since the Italy game and they also showed in both the 6N and AIs that they can be taken apart by merely attacking the breakdown. No quality team should be so easily neutralised.

As for looking to the Welsh on how to attack, I think this would serve no purpose as Wales were poor, like England, in both these tests. No team should be happy when the possession is that one sided - a team with any attack whatsoever would have murdered them with that much possession. England will want to replicate what they have done with, mostly, the same players in the recent past; they can do it but whether they will or not is a completely different question. Sorry off topic.

A serious question I have is that there does seem to be a difference in referee style between the NH and SH refs (it could just be the way the teams play but I am not so sure). As the teams will not get exposure to the refs from the other hemisphere until the group stages of the RWC does anyone think this could cause some issues? I know that the referees will be given the same guidelines to work from and the teams will, as always, have to play to the ref but is anyone else concerned by this?

senghenydd1913 wrote:the content in this thread is akin to an Islington dinner party(or so I've been told what Islington dinner parties are like)-all yap and "spacial awareness" -what we need are some good wums and abuse

now now sengo, lets breakdown your hostility over a cup of Jasmine infused cha. If we are lucky dearest Imogen may pop round to drop off a batch of her delightful bakewell tart inspired cupcakes and todays copy of The Guardian.

Scoff! What the man needs is pilates.

What I would like to see is a concerted effort at improvement against Ireland. There must surely be a lot of soul searching going on because they know how poor they were. I don't know who the referee is for the match, but i'm pretty sure he'll make some mistakes. It'll give people something to moan about if nothing else.

One problem that England have coming up is that Ireland will be a very hard nut to crack in terms of scoring tries against them. This could easily result in England playing Argentina on the back of two losses and only a two or three tries in three games. Having said that things can turn around quickly as it all it takes is a couple of good breaks resulting in tries and then the attack is back on song.

Great White wrote:What I would like to see is a concerted effort at improvement against Ireland.

That has to be the lowest bar I've ever seen set.