Are Wales that good? Only 57% win ratio this world cup

I posted after Wales lost to France and asked wether Wales are over rated? I think this loss to Australia proved they are. Wales were outplayed today make no bones about it, Australia were riddled with injuries during the game with Beale and Cooper, their two best backs having to leave the field after 20 minutes. The welsh try came from a blatent forward pass which was the only reason they were still in the game. Wales have played 7 games this world cup and LOST 3 of them. When you break that down further Wales have played 4 tier 1 teams and lost 3. in other words Wales have only won 25% of their games against tier 1 opposition! I think Wales world ranking is of 6th is spot on when you look at the games they have lost this world cup.

missing the cornerstone of our scrum, the cornerstone of our backrow and the 10 that gets us going forward, world class players all. think we did pretty well. Hook cost us again, but yes over rated for sure on results, but not on all sorts of other aspects of the game which stand us in good stead

How you can claim that any side that finishes 4th in a RWC is over-rated is simply beyond me. It beggers belief to be honest.

wrfc1980

I believe this loss will push Wales down to 8th in the IRB rankings...wasn't that where you were at the beginning of the tournament?

Wales were terrific early. But as thnings wore on plus the injuries to a few key players the team lost its edge. Became sloppy and went sideways a lot.

4th place, some great rugby, no not overrated. Wales are certainly amongst the best 6 teams in the world. Some teams that are overrated are home figuring out how to rebuild. Wales will come home on a high with a core of players performing very well together.

If I had a better understanding of what WRFC's allegiances were I might be able to decide if this is a serious question or a wum.

But hey ho...

Wales are one of the top 8 sides in the world, have played some very attractive rugby in this RWC but are very prone to doing 35 phases of side to side with no gain. But when they get into space are one of the most dangerous attacking sides in the world.

Not much overhyping there really as it is a deserved reputation, but yes the Welsh fans are very passionate and no matter what the situation, scoreline or statistics tell them they always believe they are better than they are and can win any match... Wales on their day... if you will.

Nothing wrong in this in my eyes. Having a little faith is good for the soul.

The RWC is a KO tournament not a league so the win/loss ratio is irrelevent.

Wales reached a SF and deserve the due plaudits for doing so regardless of who the beat or didn't beat. They've also played some excellent rugby and their defence and their spirit and effort has been fantastic.

They are not the finished article and have things to work on. As I've said in another thread they need to learn how to close out tight games and set up drop goals when they have the chance but overall they've had an excellent competition.

offload wrote:Wales are certainly amongst the best 6 teams in the world.

Well, amongst the top 8 but I know what you mean!

dull post- doesn't that mean England had an 80% ratio?

Could have gone better but there have been some promising signs. It all depends on whether Wales build on this platform or drift back into standard form i.e. post 05 GS & post 08 GS.

Securing the coaching staff is important.

eirebilly wrote:How you can claim that any side that finishes 4th in a RWC is over-rated is simply beyond me. It beggers belief to be honest.

Let me ask you then, how do you rate France?

In retrospect, Wales have maybe fallen short of where they should have got to.

But, with a bit of brains, they would have beaten both SA and France, and the whole Tournement would have been different, but of course that is an IF.

However if they can learn to kill teams off, they could be a very worthy favourite for the 6N, and with the relatively young squad, the 2015 World Cup

fa0019 wrote:wrfc1980

I believe this loss will push Wales down to 8th in the IRB rankings...wasn't that where you were at the beginning of the tournament?

I think that was Ireland or Scotland to be fair?

With a bit of barins England should have beaten France in the 1/4 final, but for the terrible first half England ran the French ragged in the 2nd half but couldn't quite claw it back.....See I could say the same about England but you would call that Boll*cks. Think about what you are saying, you lost to SA because they were better than you, you lost to France as you kicked away all your possesion, had a terrible lineout and missed kicks, France took their chances so were better than you. You lost to Australia because they were better to you. Take those blinkers off and look at the facts, the ONLY team Wales beat of any note was Ireland, the rest of the tier 1 teams beat you!!

the rest of the tier 1 teams beat you

No the didn't some of them were at home

wrfc, so how many tier 1 teams did England beat?

Coopers injury was a blessing in disguise. He's been poor this tournament and his replacement Barnes ended up getting man of the match!

Without a specialist tighthead, our fist choice (by a country mile) 10 and a specialist 7 who just so happens to be our captain, Wales certainly weren't at full strength either.

The welsh didn't turn up for 75 minutes, no intensity, no creativity and poor kicking. Australia were the better team, well deserved win.

Needlessly Wummy in tone.

I asked the same question recently in another thread.

Its hard to say that Wlaes have ha da bad cup when they finsished within 3 points of Aus and SA and France in their only loses and generaly performed well.

Its all about how you spin it. I think over the top optimism that Wales were suddenly a top 3 side was misplaced, but they are certainly over the moribund period they have been in for the last couple of years.
Add in the pre cup wins over Argentina and England and their IRB ranking of 8th seems daft.

Get Warburton, Preistland and Jenkins back in that side and they have to be favourites for the 6 nations.
Faleteau is a real find, one of the players of the torunament. Ryan Jones and Mike Phillips looks like international rugby players again. Preistland has been a revelation. Warburton looks like a long term capatin and potential legend.

All in all despite their inability to beat sides it has to be a positive for Wales.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:wrfc, so how many tier 1 teams did England beat?

2 ...Scotland and Argentina, lost to 1 France

If you look back to the SA and Ireland game the welsh backs were running on to the ball - the difference has been Hook and whether or not Phillips has a good game.

To be fair again, Aus and Fra defences were tighter.

wrfc1980 wrote:With a bit of barins England should have beaten France in the 1/4 final, but for the terrible first half England ran the French ragged in the 2nd half but couldn't quite claw it back.....See I could say the same about England but you would call that Boll*cks. Think about what you are saying, you lost to SA because they were better than you, you lost to France as you kicked away all your possesion, had a terrible lineout and missed kicks, France took their chances so were better than you. You lost to Australia because they were better to you. Take those blinkers off and look at the facts, the ONLY team Wales beat of any note was Ireland, the rest of the tier 1 teams beat you!!

Hope you have calmed down now, but just so you don't feel totally daft, I am Scottish, and was simply pointing out, what I thought was obvious!

Maybe you should take the blinkers off!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:wrfc, so how many tier 1 teams did England beat?

2 ...Scotland and Argentina, lost to 1 France

Biscuit, think we Scots are firmly in tier 2 now, below Tonga in the rankings Put it another way, how many teams above them in teh rankings did Wales beat? 1 = Ireland; and England? 0

I would have classed Argentina as Tier 1?

offload wrote:4th place, some great rugby, no not overrated. Wales are certainly amongst the best 6 teams in the world. Some teams that are overrated are home figuring out how to rebuild. Wales will come home on a high with a core of players performing very well together.

You can look at that to say Wales are currently 8th in the world at the top of their game, they can only go backwards form here.

France are at a low ebb in a world cup final and ranked 3rd in the world ...likely to improve in the future.

We can all spin these things.

JDandfries wrote:I would have classed Argentina as Tier 1?

Hmm I dunno, they are only ranked abovethe likes of Wales and Scotland

I think including the 3/4th place play-off in any statistical W/L ratio is a bit of a wind-up in the first place.

Tis a success to get to play on the final weekend of a KO competition. But while players atill want to do well in the bronze match, it is just not fair to compare it to the intensity and seriousness of the main tournament.

In that sense Wales were 4/2. And the opening loss was the closest of games which they really should have won.

I agree that Wales have a lot more hurdles to cross than perhaps they even can see right now. But they still have been the best NH side at this WC.

The Welsh, fully fit and all guns blazing FIRST choice 15 is in no way overrated. That group of players plus one or two on the fringes can be world class. I think the problem that will have to be faced is the lack of meaningful depth. A couple of abscences seems to make a huge difference and once we get below the immediate replacements the waters begin to get murky. Just a shame we're so immersed in history and can't even tolerate the idea of a British (Wal, Sco, Eng), team. Now that WOULD be world beating.

...and no - the lions don't count!!

WE NEED A SIDE BACK to give some of the next level of plaayers exposure

ultra wrote:The Welsh, fully fit and all guns blazing FIRST choice 15 is in no way overrated. That group of players plus one or two on the fringes can be world class. I think the problem that will have to be faced is the lack of meaningful depth. A couple of abscences seems to make a huge difference and once we get below the immediate replacements the waters begin to get murky. Just a shame we're so immersed in history and can't even tolerate the idea of a British (Wal, Sco, Eng), team. Now that WOULD be world beating.

ultra, I'd even say the first choice XXII is in no way overrated, but it does fall off quite sharply after that

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:I think including the 3/4th place play-off in any statistical W/L ratio is a bit of a wind-up in the first place.

Tis a success to get to play on the final weekend of a KO competition. But while players atill want to do well in the bronze match, it is just not fair to compare it to the intensity and seriousness of the main tournament.

In that sense Wales were 4/2. And the opening loss was the closest of games which they really should have won.

I agree that Wales have a lot more hurdles to cross than perhaps they even can see right now. But they still have been the best NH side at this WC.

Whereas including a match against Namibia , and ignoring Samoas short turnaround, is totaly meaningful of course?

But yes, best of the 6 nations for sure, and they progressed well. 6 months ago a narrow semi final loss wouldve been unthinkable.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

ultra wrote:The Welsh, fully fit and all guns blazing FIRST choice 15 is in no way overrated. That group of players plus one or two on the fringes can be world class. I think the problem that will have to be faced is the lack of meaningful depth. A couple of abscences seems to make a huge difference and once we get below the immediate replacements the waters begin to get murky. Just a shame we're so immersed in history and can't even tolerate the idea of a British (Wal, Sco, Eng), team. Now that WOULD be world beating.

ultra, I'd even say the first choice XXII is in no way overrated, but it does fall off quite sharply after that

Fair point - but as a forward myself I always believe its there you look first and wheras the first choice tight five for wales are an enviable unit it looks a bit more beatable when one or two aren't around, that said - no they're not overrated right now just, (and I hate saying this), seemingly ok with that awful 'gallant losers' tag. They're better than that.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

JDandfries wrote:I would have classed Argentina as Tier 1?

Hmm I dunno, they are only ranked abovethe likes of Wales and Scotland

I was told by English fans earlier in the tournament that Argentina were the top seeds in your pool, not England as I wrongly assumed. Therefore, if Argentina as top seeds were not Tier 1 then where does that put England and Scotland?

I think what we have learned is that at the very top level you have to take your chances.....and Wales didn't.

The first 3 players on the Wales team sheet for me would be Adam Jones, Warburton and Priestland. We didn't have them for most of the last 2 games and it showed.

We played today off a retreating scrum. For some reason Gatland chose to play a loosehead at 3 instead of our reserve tighthead, Mitchell. Who whilst not as good as Adam is certainly a specialist 3 and would surely have done better than James.

Warburton is a world class 7 and at the very first ruck I noticed Pocock fighting for the ball and Faletau standing off the ruck and he then realised that he should have been in there but by then it was too late we had lost the ball. Small things, but again I questioned from the start the wisdom of not taking a back up 7 when Byrne got the final squad place.

Priestland we missed sorely in the last 2 games. Hook has been useless in both. Stephen Jones should have been given the reins and kept our super sub. Hook has kicked poorly from hand and also missed some shockingly easy penalties and conversions. When you consider we lost the last 2 games by total of 4 points, these things really matter.

Oh, and Hooks pass for Shane's try was so far forward I thought we had switched to American football.

But there you go. We now drop to 8th due to the double negative points. Seems strange, but the system over inflates winners and badly penalises losers. If it was a high ranking we were after then we may have been better not getting out of our group, but I would much rather take a semi final.

i think what this world cup has shown is that when wales are playing at 100% they can put themselves IN POSITIONS to win games against the biggest teams on the biggest stage, that is something that we have no been able to do on a consistent basis since professionalism....

what today shows is that we can not win without playing at 100%.....

the pleasing aspects is that we know how to put ourselves in positions to win games, the next step for this squad is learning to nail these opportunities.....

however if one looks at pure results we have only beaten samoa and ireland of any note, nothing we havent done before so you could argue that yes the team were a bit overated...however the performance levels are there they just need to kick on from this....i want to see a win over australia in december and to be in contention for winning the 6n come the spring

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:wrfc, so how many tier 1 teams did England beat?

2 - Agentina & Scotland.

Metal Tiger wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:wrfc, so how many tier 1 teams did England beat?

2 - Agentina & Scotland.

MetalTigger, youll need to scroll further down for my response and alteration to the original question

Wales just looked tired today. Could have something to do with the short turnaround.

I think Ireland was fairly tired after a very physical game against Italy & 6 day turnaround as well. Ireland's centres were knackered.

wrfc1980 wrote:I posted after Wales lost to France and asked wether Wales are over rated? I think this loss to Australia proved they are. Wales were outplayed today make no bones about it, Australia were riddled with injuries during the game with Beale and Cooper, their two best backs having to leave the field after 20 minutes. The welsh try came from a blatent forward pass which was the only reason they were still in the game. Wales have played 7 games this world cup and LOST 3 of them. When you break that down further Wales have played 4 tier 1 teams and lost 3. in other words Wales have only won 25% of their games against tier 1 opposition! I think Wales world ranking is of 6th is spot on when you look at the games they have lost this world cup.

what an absolutely ridiclous thing to say! (and im an england fan :p)

Griff wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

JDandfries wrote:I would have classed Argentina as Tier 1?

Hmm I dunno, they are only ranked abovethe likes of Wales and Scotland

I was told by English fans earlier in the tournament that Argentina were the top seeds in your pool, not England as I wrongly assumed. Therefore, if Argentina as top seeds were not Tier 1 then where does that put England and Scotland?

Griff, you need to distinguish between rankings and seedings - I think that Arg were either 3 or 4th ranked when the IRB decided upon RWC seedings on the back of their 2007 display - but by the time the tournie started, they'd dropped to 8th or 9th?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:wrfc, so how many tier 1 teams did England beat?

2 - Agentina & Scotland.

Anyway... thought this thread was about Wales... didn't take long to devolve into sledging did it?

Wales is better than England because they did this.....
No, england is better than Wales because they did that......

When are you guys going to learn.

What does the head to head say?
Who is having the better of each other in recent history?

Grow up.

The three matches wales lost were lost by a total of 5 points! They couldn't have been any closer, compare that stat to a win ratio of 57%.

Sin é wrote:Wales just looked tired today. Could have something to do with the short turnaround.

I think Ireland was fairly tired after a very physical game against Italy & 6 day turnaround as well. Ireland's centres were knackered.

Sin you are a chancer sir!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:I think including the 3/4th place play-off in any statistical W/L ratio is a bit of a wind-up in the first place.

Tis a success to get to play on the final weekend of a KO competition. But while players atill want to do well in the bronze match, it is just not fair to compare it to the intensity and seriousness of the main tournament.

In that sense Wales were 4/2. And the opening loss was the closest of games which they really should have won.

I agree that Wales have a lot more hurdles to cross than perhaps they even can see right now. But they still have been the best NH side at this WC.

Whereas including a match against Namibia , and ignoring Samoas short turnaround, is totaly meaningful of course?

But yes, best of the 6 nations for sure, and they progressed well. 6 months ago a narrow semi final loss wouldve been unthinkable.

Seabiscuit. I think we're in more agreement than you think.

I'll concede the point on Namibia. But as for the Samoa game... you seem to be confusing me with a Welsh supporter who thinks that every Welsh game was the perfect game. The fact that Wales struggled against Samoa proves just how meaningful it was. And that says much more about how international teams stand at the moment than the 3-4th place play off or all this talk of "top 3 teams in the world", etc. The point is that if the Welsh had beaten the Ozzies (who had a much changed team) by 30-40 points noone (from a neutral point of view) would have taken it particularly seriously. Similarly, if the Ozzies had run away against a disrupted and somewhat jaded looking Wales... that would have been meaningless. The fact that it was a good close game doesn't change that. It was pretty irrelevant as regards Welsh performances overall.

What counts is producing the big moves and the strategy in impressive amounts on the big day. Wales for me have done that pretty consistently this WC (SA, Ireland and then again, despite the circumstances, against France). They do still seem a bit psychologically weak however. Whether they can continure their rapid rise come February is a much more open question. The 6Ns doesn't allow for a slow developed piecemeal progress... as the opening 6N game for Wales shows.

57% looks more like our successful goal kicking ratio, as much as I dont want to turn this into the blame game, but with Wales' results so close, more accurate goal kicking could have won those matches.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Griff wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

JDandfries wrote:I would have classed Argentina as Tier 1?

Hmm I dunno, they are only ranked abovethe likes of Wales and Scotland

I was told by English fans earlier in the tournament that Argentina were the top seeds in your pool, not England as I wrongly assumed. Therefore, if Argentina as top seeds were not Tier 1 then where does that put England and Scotland?

Griff, you need to distinguish between rankings and seedings - I think that Arg were either 3 or 4th ranked when the IRB decided upon RWC seedings on the back of their 2007 display - but by the time the tournie started, they'd dropped to 8th or 9th?

I think they were 8th at tourney start but what jhes alludeing to is the number of people who were running down England a predicting that they would lose to scotland and argentina. That went on from teh minute the groups were announced to the point that England beat them....in the same wya that there were polenty of people predicting that Wales would struggle to qualify from their group ( which they kind of did with only a narrow victory over Samoa).


Anyway what we need to seperate here is fair criticism of Wales' weaknesses versus staright forward wummery, which is why I suggest the thread that first asked this question " should wales fans be happy with 3 losses?" is a better starting point than this wind up.

Theres cases for both. In pure results Wales have had a poor tournament. In terms of pushing repuattion sides to the limit they have had an excellent torunement. 4th place is more than most had expected, especially after seeing the group they were in. But as the likes of TGG would point out the fact that 4th place is seen as excellent refelcts badly on Wales and the NH and just how much they have struggled to match the Tri Nations sides as a collective since 03.

IronMike wrote:57% looks more like our successful goal kicking ratio, as much as I dont want to turn this into the blame game, but with Wales' results so close, more accurate goal kicking could have won those matches.

Could have put them in a semi final against aus and an earlier exit too.

More accurate goal kicking couldve helped aus to a comfortable win today, their ratio was worse than Wales'.

Whilst a glalring weakness its too easy a scapegoat, any side could improve in every area to make that 5% difference to turn a narrow loss into a narrow win. Wales just seem very good at losing to better sides ( or perhaps in Frances case better players in a worse side)

I always thought this world cup had come to soon for some of the younger lads, but they all stood up to be counted.
You can can call us overated if you like but underate us at your peril.You have'nt seen the best of this Welsh side yet and there's quite a few more youngsters Knocking on the door,exciting times ahead for Welsh rugby