Why were Wales the best home nation at the RWC?

Poll please.

Were Wales the best home nation at the RWC? Discuss.

beshocked wrote:Were Wales the best home nation at the RWC? Discuss.

Now that is a silly question.

Only England won as many games as Wales, but England were knocked out in the Quarter Finals, Wales progressed to the Semis.

Yes Wales were definitely and unequivocally the Best of the four Home Nations at the World Cup 2011.

There is no argument against it.

maestegmafia wrote:Only England won as many games as Wales, but England were knocked out in the Quarter Finals, Wales progressed to the Semis.

Yes Wales were definitely and unequivocally the Best of the four Home Nations at the World Cup 2011.

There is no argument against it.

Ireland also had the same amount of wins.

saying that the performance of the Welsh team was excellent over the world cup and it is like that it was a combination of the above rather than one specfic reason.

Maestegmafia well the way you could look at it

England won 4/5
Wales won 4/7
Ireland won 4/5

Ireland were the only team to beat a tri nation side - Australia.
England and Ireland topped their pools.
Wales lost to the same team England did.

Wales did admittedly get the furthest but does that make them the best?

I also think Wales were the best team from the home nations. I think a lot of it is down to preperation.

Upon hearing about their cryo chamber training I immediatly was interested to learn about the effects it has on the human body. It was a fascinating read : click here for Article from Wikipedia

I think this sort of training regime certainly gave them an edge in terms of fitness. Against Ireland, Wales were utterly dominant in every facet of the game. Against France in the Semi's it's pretty easy to argue that despite losing Warburton Wales looked as if they still had 15 men on the pitch and France were made to work extremely hard.

No doubt about it Wales were the best of the home nations in the RWC and I think the preperation for the tournament was the biggest factor, followed very closely by the team spirit that was obvious from the 1st game against the Boks.

Ultimatly however it was not enough and the stats say Wales played the most games and got the furthest, however it was the nature of their wins and more importantly their losses that set them apart from the other home nations.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Upon hearing about their cryo chamber training

Ireland actually did something similar before the 2007 WC - we all know how well that went - so I'm not sure that is the sole reason. I think Gatlands selection policy helped, he picked a lot of very good young players. By doing this he took away alot of the pressure to perform. As the competition progressed they gained more and more momentum - this can make a big difference to any team, especially a young team.
But it is a combination of a lot of things really - all of the above list helped and probabaly a lot more besides.

beshocked wrote:Maestegmafia well the way you could look at it

England won 4/5
Wales won 4/7
Ireland won 4/5

Ireland were the only team to beat a tri nation side - Australia.
England and Ireland topped their pools.
Wales lost to the same team England did.

Wales did admittedly get the furthest but does that make them the best?

Wales also beat both Ireland and England in their last matches against those sides. England beat Ireland too so lets say that the table lies as Wales best, England second Ireland third on last performances and look forward to the next round in the Six Nations 2012.

England beat Wales twice in 2011

Wales did look good with their performances due to a mixture of things - preparation, fitness & team spirit most to the fore. Well timed injuries also helped - as without Stephen Jones getting hurt in the warm up against England pre WC, would Priestland have been tried at 10?

Any way we get to see all the Home Nations against each other soon - so let us see who comes out top.

LondonTiger wrote:England beat Wales twice in 2011

Over the last four years Wales vs England is 3 all, one away win each with Wales scoring 1 more point than England in the points difference over those six matches. Wales just one point superior on points difference.

Over the last four years ireland vs England is 3 - 2 to Ireland one away win each. With England Scoring 13 more points than Ireland over those five matches. England superior on games won and 13 points difference in their favour.

Over the last four years Ireland vs Wales is 3 - 2 to Wales, one away win each. With Wales scoring 5 more points than ireland over those five matches. Wales superior in games won and five points difference in their favour.

Wales
England
Ireland

A mixed bag for the "home" nations in 2011. I don't think any team can claim to be the best over the course of the 6N, warm ups and the RWC.

I think yes, Wales were the best of the home nations at the world cup.

I think it was down to preperation and the leadership of Sam Warburton.

I think people who use the Wales won 4/7 whereas England won 4/5 and therefore England had a better world cup are extremely bitter about the whole thing, i bet they feel like their little brother just went one better than them on the biggest stage. Take it like a man. jeeez.



Also agree with Breadvan about 2011 being a mixed bag for all the home countries overall.

Six Nations was a mixed bag yes. England beat Wales but lost to Ireland, Wales beat Ireland but lost to England.

Warm Ups Wales won at home, one lost away against England, though the aggregate score was +6 to Wales over the two games 4 tries to 2 to Wales, England beat Ireland in Dublin.

RWC Wales, England and Ireland all won four games. England and Ireland lost their 1/4 finals, Wales beat Ireland in their 1/4 final and progressed to the semis losing to France by one point who beat England by seven points. Wales had the best world cup.

Though you are right, all in all it is a mixed bag between Wales and England for bragging rights in 2011 if you look at the overall stats.

13 matches. England won ten, lost three scored 333 points conceding 181, thats a +152 pd, 37 tries, 29 converted, 27 penalties and 3 drop goals.

16 matches. Wales won nine, lost seven, scoring 417 points conceding 239, thats a +178 pd, 48 tries, 35 converted, 35 penalties and a drop goal.

14 matches. Ireland won seven, lost seven, scored 287 points conceding 212 thats a +75 pd, 29 tries, 23 converted, 30 penalties and two drop goals.

England won the most games, lost the least but also played the least. Scored less points than Wales but also conceded less in total. Wales had the largest points difference by a decent amount, they also progressed further in the RWC losing to teams that beat England by less points with less players on the pitch.

Wales undoubtedly had the best finish in the World Cup of all the home nations with a fourth place finish, but performance of the tournament for a team from these shores goes to Ireland for their game against Australia.

I don't think Wales' World Cup, looking back purely on results, was that good. They beat the three teams they should have (Samoa, Fiji and Namibia), beat Ireland (they're one good result in my book) and then lost to South Africa, France and Australia.

The manner of performances however was a step up from what I'd seen from Wales - especially in 2010 - and performances like that with such a young team bode well for Wales going further. But had Ireland not played like they did against Australia, and saved a performance of that magnitude for a would-be quarter-final against South Africa, Ireland would have been in the semi-finals and, based on what we saw in the Bronze final, Wales would have lost to Australia.

Again, Wales had the best finish at the World Cup, but I don't think they were as far ahead of the other home nations as some would have you believe.

I would shade 2011 as a whole to England. 10 from 13 isn't a bad record for anyone's money, with no test losses on English soil and the only home nation to lift a trophy this year. However, for the first time in God knows how long, we didn't play a Tri-Nations team in the calendar year.

according to the backrow, they said poland helped so much, they hated it but the fitness increase it gave them was immense- they are going there in january- at like -20 over there as lydiate said.

robbo277 wrote:I would shade 2011 as a whole to England. 10 from 13 isn't a bad record for anyone's money, with no test losses on English soil and the only home nation to lift a trophy this year. However, for the first time in God knows how long, we didn't play a Tri-Nations team in the calendar year.

I think the only team England played that we're ranked above them were France.

It is debatable whether Wales were THE best home RWC side,games outside it are off topic.
France that played the pool stages,was a different animal in the knockout stages.
Wales with respect a Semi was the best they could have hoped for,and that they achieved.
England realistically a Semi was the best they could hope for at there present stage of progress.
Ireland won there Group,and beat the World number 2 side,BUT most importantly changed the whole nature of the RWC.
THERE victory meant France,could afford to drop two matches and still qualify without trying much.

Er in a knockout comp the 'best' nation (whatever the feck that means) is the one that survives longest

QED

1. Wales - semi ( and i still have one)
2. England and ireland - quarter
4. Scotland - group

emack2 wrote:It is debatable whether Wales were THE best home RWC side,games outside it are off topic.
France that played the pool stages,was a different animal in the knockout stages.
Wales with respect a Semi was the best they could have hoped for,and that they achieved.
England realistically a Semi was the best they could hope for at there present stage of progress.
Ireland won there Group,and beat the World number 2 side,BUT most importantly changed the whole nature of the RWC.
THERE victory meant France,could afford to drop two matches and still qualify without trying much.

You might also remember that in the semi that wales "was the best they could have hoped for" played France with fourteen men and lost by one point. That was a French team winning by the skin of their teeth mate, you make it sound like it was an emphatic French victory?

The French players were all saying they didn't think they deserved to win.

Often a team with 14 men plays above themselves,Warburton was unlucky to be Red Carded. BUT it was correct to the letter of the Law,Wales had a great RWC.
My comment was not intended as a slight ,BUT Pre-RWC what was your expectations?
IF your Scrum half had had the wit to move the ball quickly from the Rucks.
Versus South Africa instead of stoping to have a cup of tea,and let them reset there defences.
THEY could have beaten them and overall deserved too,BUT deserving and winning are different things.
Otherwise maybe France would be RWC holders now.

I am afraid you seem to have meandered from your point now? You seem to have added several ideas together contradicting what you first wrote.

I think Wales had a very Good RWC,from a historical point of view there best in 1987.
They went furthest ,so technically they had the best RWC,my second post was on facts,not ifs and buts.
Wales certainly have found a new crop of players like North,Warburton ,Priestland etc.
What I wanted to see was Wales beat the Boks,I was doing my nut at the screen.
Watching Wales in the second half all the possession,ball at the base of the ruck.
Then NOT using it ,quick movement from it is the key to opening up defences.
Resetting for another phase,just allows the defence to settle,sorry it is a pe t hate ofmine.

They stumbled over some young players who far exceeded expectations.

I think Wales faired well because they organised themselves well. Their defence was the best and they mixed up their tactical kicking with good ball carrying options. I think the major advantage for them was the leadership of Warburton (who lead said defence) and that in the warm ups they prepared by playing England who dominated the tight five battle. Allowing Wales to go to the RWC with good knowledge of who could do what whilst under pressure and with little ball.

Ireland actually did something similar before the 2007 WC - we all know how well that went

Was that more to do with the Irish team unable to create any sort of dynamic play in the backs though?

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:They stumbled over some young players who far exceeded expectations.

They didn't 'stumble' over anything - we invest in our youth

In my view the performance of Wales should not be measured by the result of the world cup.

It should be looked at what was achieved.

They performed better as a team than any other Home nation. They played by far the best rugby of the home nations, and their single individual best performance of the tournamnet in my view was the way they dispatched of Ireland in their quarter final match.

In contrast to Ireland, Wales made the right calls and decisions on the field, where as Ireland put themselves under pressure by not going to post.

They wanted to prove they can play the running and attacking game better than Wales, and yet failed to do so.

The same scenario happened with SA vs Australia in their quarter final match (obviously ignoring my pet peeve for the next four years Burce Lawrence).

South Africa also did not use the opportunities when they could, and decided they want to prove they could outrun Australia.

Because of this Wales were for me the best side of the home nations at the world cup. They did what they knew they could do well. They didn't leave anything up in the air to speculate about.

Ireland can speculate about many mistakes they made during that match, England, well the least said the better. They came for a imprompto holiday.

Scotland tried but sadly do not have the personnel.

They did what they knew they could do well. They didn't leave anything up in the air to speculate about.

Well put. Play the numbers and do what you're good at. It's amazing the number of teams that don't follow that simple idea.

Along with the old "a team of tacklers will concede less tries" moto. Some great work by the Welsh backrow put Wales in a completely different position. I remember reading that Faletau missed one tackle all tournament. That is an amazing record.

maestegmafia wrote:Along with the old "a team of tacklers will concede less tries" moto. Some great work by the Welsh backrow put Wales in a completely different position. I remember reading that Faletau missed one tackle all tournament. That is an amazing record.

Im not doubting the lads talent...and he had a fine WC...but I just find that so hard to believe....

Anyway....Heres a question?

If the scenario rose that on Saturday Wales get heavily beaten....how will you view your progress....

Great world cup but young team - work in progress...?
Not quite where we thought we were...?

Depends on the performance. If Wales are completely inept and let the opposition walk all over them like the Baa Baa's last week then I will be very disappointed in them.

I would be surprised to see Wales get a heavy defeat though...

beshocked wrote:Maestegmafia well the way you could look at it

England won 4/5
Wales won 4/7
Ireland won 4/5

Ireland were the only team to beat a tri nation side - Australia.
England and Ireland topped their pools.
Wales lost to the same team England did.

Wales did admittedly get the furthest but does that make them the best?

I thought they were the best for separate reasons ie playing the better rugby, didn't you?

Admittedly though I can understand your challenge, threads like this are highly tiresome. Same daily guff from the same provocative attention-seeking individuals. Just don't give em the time of day.

Priestland had a huge effect on the team. With flash in the pan wonder 10's like Cooper around you forget just how much better it is to have a flyhalf that does everything well 100% (or near enough) of the time.

Wales were the best NH team of the tournament in my view and that's including France. If they'd had Priestland in that game then 14 men wouldn't have mattered a jot.

TACKLE STATS - STATS (Click on tab)

Cheers Penfro

Toby Faletau 74 Tackles 0 missed, 74 Carries

George North 23 Defenders beaten 9 clean Breaks

Mike Phillipps 380 passes

maestegmafia wrote:Mike Phillipps 380 passes

In his career?

Can we have capitals for Home Nation please. NZ were the home nation, we were the best and we won.

Wales were the best Home Nation because they played an attractive brand of rugby, unearthed some very promising players (still can´t get over Faletau didn´t miss a tackle. That´s outragegous!) and probably had one of the players of the tournaments in Jamie Roberts, performed the most consistently and got the furthest in the comp.

But it´ll all be for nothing if Wales can´t build on this and win the 6N and start winning against the SH sides on a regular basis. After all, Wales haven´t won anything of note for a while so they must build on these encouraging signs.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Mike Phillipps 380 passes

In his career?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:it´ll all be for nothing if Wales can´t build on this and win the 6N and start winning against the SH sides on a regular basis. After all, Wales haven´t won anything of note for a while so they must build on these encouraging signs.

Well said that man.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:it´ll all be for nothing if Wales can´t build on this and win the 6N and start winning against the SH sides on a regular basis. After all, Wales haven´t won anything of note for a while so they must build on these encouraging signs.

Well said that man.

Agreed

Good to see the encouraging signs but we have all seen more false dawns than an Arctic winter... So expectation is ominous even for an optimistic nation.

Knowsit17 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Maestegmafia well the way you could look at it

England won 4/5
Wales won 4/7
Ireland won 4/5

Ireland were the only team to beat a tri nation side - Australia.
England and Ireland topped their pools.
Wales lost to the same team England did.

Wales did admittedly get the furthest but does that make them the best?

I thought they were the best for separate reasons ie playing the better rugby, didn't you?

Admittedly though I can understand your challenge, threads like this are highly tiresome. Same daily guff from the same provocative attention-seeking individuals. Just don't give em the time of day.

Yes they were the best but there is no point it being shoved down our throats every other minute. Does it mean they'll bag the grandslam next season? Probably not. Does the future of Welsh rugby look bright? Yes.

In terms of performance e.g. getting further and playing better rugby then Wales were by far the best. In regards to cold hard stats like wins and losses proportionality they lost more games than England and Ireland. They also lost to the same opposition as England.

My point is after the world cup the slate is clean again. The 6 nations is a fresh start. Wales need to continue with the positives and work on their negatives.

Wales will get a chance to prove how good they really are in the 6 nations. Like all teams. E.g. if Wales lose to England at Twickenham yet again is it back to the drawing board?

all this is very well and good, but this thread is obviously very specific from the title - "why were wales the best home nation at the RWC?"

if you dont like the thread "being rammed down your throats" stop clicking on the posts and ramming it down your own throats.

if you want to debate about the topic raised in the thread, then debate.

shame on you all.