Are Wales currently better than England at rugby?

There are a million threads at the moment ranging from topics such as:

"It was a try"
"It wasn't a try"
"England are rebuilding"
"Wales will only be good if they can beat the SH teams"

A lot of these points myself and other Welsh posters agree with. Wales still have a long way to go in this championship, but at least for now, we can be very happy that Wales are better than England at rugby.

A cave dwelling nation of about 4,000 people who only learned to play rugby in 1962 and lost but all it's industry 3 decades ago. It feels great.

Well at the moment, Wales beat England in Twickenham, Wales have moved up above England in the IRB world Rankins.

So at the moment Yes they are.

This is just a red rag to a bull isnt it Idris?

No

This is the one thing that HERSH will not be able to desecrate. He may not even be able to comment.

Other related threads:

Is red the new black? Is white the new black?

Which stadium is better? Twickers or Lenners?

Is Wales at their best better than England at their best?

Is Wales at their worst better than England at their worst?

Which song gets you more pumped? Swing Low? Bread of Heaven?

In answer to your question Wales is better but it´s very close.

currently - yes.

Next time they both play in this Six Nations perceptions might change again

At this moment in time,the question is almost as redundant as asking whether Welsh female fans look daft with those pink cowboy hats on.

Obviously, at this point in time Wales are the better side - more settled, in better form and with a solid coaching setup. We do though have some cause for cautious optimism as England fans - quite a few players are getting the chance to gain international experience, and we've already shown Tuillagi is very good, while Farrell showed some promise.

Best question it is possible to ask 4 days after the game

dummy_half wrote:At this moment in time,the question is almost as redundant as asking whether Welsh female fans look daft with those pink cowboy hats on.

Obviously, at this point in time Wales are the better side - more settled, in better form and with a solid coaching setup. We do though have some cause for cautious optimism as England fans - quite a few players are getting the chance to gain international experience, and we've already shown Tuillagi is very good, while Farrell showed some promise.

Your lack of knowledge of Welsh folklore is jawdropping!Spangly cowboy hats were de rigeur in mid-Wales since the late 1800's.This followed Annie Oakley's final tour.Being from Welsh stock she was drawn to Wales and so brought her show to the principality.
The local folk were much taken to Annie and to this day females in a secret village each day don the sparkly hat in the mystical hours of the night and whisper in the ear of their beloved "I was there".This is not quite the same as an English lass saying "I am coming" as clearly the Welsh lass got there before the English lass.Whoops!Some rude people may twist this innocent tale and it might get the crook.It was innocent,honest!

No of course Wales are not better than England. England put out a bunch of no-cap players and still outplayed wales for most of the match. Their much vaunted backline were sat down and turned over endlessly by a callow English team coached by a relative novice.

If Wales think they are a good side then they are living in cloud cuckoo land - again! Any SH side will take them apart.

No, the real test of where England is at in the 6Ns will be France. That's the big one.

englandglory4ever wrote:No of course Wales are not better than England. England put out a bunch of no-cap players and still outplayed wales for most of the match. Their much vaunted backline were sat down and turned over endlessly by a callow English team coached by a relative novice.

If Wales think they are a good side then they are living in cloud cuckoo land - again! Any SH side will take them apart.

No, the real test of where England is at in the 6Ns will be France. That's the big one.

How is the recovery from the concussion going?Are you having blackouts still?Any recollection of Wales v SA or Wales v Australia at the WC?Have a lie down.Take a tablet and try to get real.
If that doesnt work I might suggest football which is more easily grasped for the spectator.

well the fact is Wales should be better than england at this stage.

They have a more settled squad, they have a much more cohesive pack and collectively a more dangerous back line, plus they have more class players.

Warburton
North
Davies
Roberts
Cuthbert
Halfpenny

Note I said class players as world class is just an old cliche.

What makes their back line such class is hte fact that they combine very well and understand each other, there is trust between these guys and anytime that happens the "click" is on.

England still does not look like a cohesive group, admittedly they gave Wales a good go, but as individuals not as a collective.

Its not just the last win over England that says to me that Wales are currently better. The performances from Wales (excluding the England match) have been far better and more convincing.

Mind you, Wales are the better cheats, what with their diving into tip tackle positions to win penalties and the cheeky hiring of ball boys to give them the wrong ball. Wales are scamps

As ever the Welsh fail to understand the point of proper sport.

Its the taking part that counts, not the winning. Look at the player number figures from the IRB.

England is clearly better than Wales at rugby.

Moral victors

englandglory4ever wrote:No of course Wales are not better than England.

So now it's 'you can never beat England, you can only score more points than them.'

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
So now it's 'you can never beat England, you can only score more points than them.'

No, that's most of Ireland's viewpoint.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
So now it's 'you can never beat England, you can only score more points than them.'

No, that's most of Ireland's viewpoint.

Whats Ireland got to do with this thread... Any chance eh Chunky

Yes

eirebilly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
So now it's 'you can never beat England, you can only score more points than them.'

No, that's most of Ireland's viewpoint.

Whats Ireland got to do with this thread... Any chance eh Chunky

You reap what you sow

2 wins from the last 5 games against England and sudenly Wales think they are the world champions.

We only try at world cups anyway. Except the last one obviously.

I guess this game did prove that on their day Wales can beat anyone, well done little brother. Now fetch my slippers.


Ooops sorry forgot to login as EnglandGlory4ever

Chunky Norwich wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
So now it's 'you can never beat England, you can only score more points than them.'

No, that's most of Ireland's viewpoint.

Whats Ireland got to do with this thread... Any chance eh Chunky

You reap what you sow

Sorry but i really just dont get you...

Wales are currently better than England at rugby. By a gnat's doodle. After 4 years of construction under Gatland and Edwards. Well done Wales. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Triangulation wrote:Wales are currently better than England at rugby. By a gnat's doodle. After 4 years of construction under Gatland and Edwards. Well done Wales. Enjoy it while it lasts.

In fairness, Wales are a little more ahead of England than that.

It was a well-hung gnat, Billy.

IRB rankings do not lie. They are the most objective way we have of ranking teams. Based on these and the most recent game between the 2 countries and the 2 countries results and performances at the last 2 tournaments, I don't see how anyone could claim Wales are not better than us

I think Ive made two well reasoned cases Chequered

Chunky Norwich wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
So now it's 'you can never beat England, you can only score more points than them.'

No, that's most of Ireland's viewpoint.

Didn't realise you were Irish chunky? Should have known with your obsession with us

Yes Wales are better than England, does it really matter that much? Why the fixation with England? Its Italy, France then Australia that matter now is it not?

The Wales senior men's team probably have a slight edge at the moment, yes.

Does that mean "Wales" are "Better" than "England" at "Rugby"?

I'm assuming what you mean is something along the lines of "If the senior England mens 15 aside team played the equivalent Welsh team 100 times (assuming injuries and fatigue were not factors), would Wales probably win the a majority of the matches?". In which case I'd probably say they probably would.

On a given day, either team might win and I'm certain in other forms/levels of the game England have a significiant advantage ( U20's, women's, 7's, Saxons ).

I'll be voting for Wales in a minute.

But I'll also post a poll about 6Ns sides vs SH opposition shortly.

ChequeredJersey wrote:IRB rankings do not lie. They are the most objective way we have of ranking teams. Based on these and the most recent game between the 2 countries and the 2 countries results and performances at the last 2 tournaments, I don't see how anyone could claim Wales are not better than us

IRB ranking may not lie, but they are not objective either.

It is a subjective statistical compilation of data, whereby every team has not played the same opponents over a period or with the same regularity. The points earned is based on a system where conditions vary, injuries affect squads and wheather plays a big role in how it allows perfect conditions for team performance.

It is flawed, but the best available. Each person can rate the value of importance as they see fit.


This is one case where I actually agree with my opponent Taffin, that stats aren't accurate.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I think Ive made two well reasoned cases Chequered

I did enjoy both. But we also both know that "it's the taking part that counts" is absolute tosh

biltongbek wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:IRB rankings do not lie. They are the most objective way we have of ranking teams. Based on these and the most recent game between the 2 countries and the 2 countries results and performances at the last 2 tournaments, I don't see how anyone could claim Wales are not better than us

IRB ranking may not lie, but they are not objective either.

It is a subjective statistical compilation of data, whereby every team has not played the same opponents over a period or with the same regularity. The points earned is based on a system where conditions vary, injuries affect squads and wheather plays a big role in how it allows perfect conditions for team performance.

It is flawed, but the best available. Each person can rate the value of importance as they see fit.


This is one case where I actually agree with my opponent Taffin, that stats aren't accurate.

Hence "most" objective.

Tomayto, tomato. word play my friend, but I suppose both could be "most" close.

biltongbek wrote:Tomayto, tomato. word play my friend, but I suppose both could be "most" close.

Yeah but one of those makes you sound like George Bush and one makes yous sound like Colin Firth, which I think we can agree should be the tie-breaker in all arguments of this kind

At senior level taking form over the last 12 months I would say Wales were better.

However our under 20's got smashed recently and the English 7's team usually achieve higher accolades in 7's.

Impossible Standards wrote: English 7's team usually achieve higher accolades in 7's.

Spoiler:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Tomayto, tomato. word play my friend, but I suppose both could be "most" close.

Yeah but one of those makes you sound like George Bush and one makes yous sound like Colin Firth, which I think we can agree should be the tie-breaker in all arguments of this kind

well I ain't no George Bush... err, I don't think so.

Peter - Ok fair point but I mean they usually get further in the comp. Latest standings:


1 NEW ZEALAND 92
2 FIJI 87
3 SOUTH AFRICA 76
4 ENGLAND 74
5 SAMOA 69

In many respects England were the better side.

biltongbek wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Tomayto, tomato. word play my friend, but I suppose both could be "most" close.

Yeah but one of those makes you sound like George Bush and one makes yous sound like Colin Firth, which I think we can agree should be the tie-breaker in all arguments of this kind

well I ain't no George Bush... err, I don't think so.

I used to work with (I say work with, work in the same building) as a guy who I swear was the utter spitting image of George W Bush. It was uncanny. I've never seen a looky-likely who looky-liked so much. So much so that the normally humourless people in security put "Mr President" on his ID swipe pass. It used to freak me out. Unfortunately he had a thick brummie accent or the guy could have made a fortune appearing in dangerous war zones waving and grinning vacantly for a few years there.

Either that or George W. Bush does an amazing impersonation of a brummie and has a penchant for moonlighting as an IT support worker whilst there are dangerous war zones to be avoided.

Triangulation wrote:In many respects England were the better side.

Which respects were those?

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

Triangulation wrote:In many respects England were the better side.

Which respects were those?

Starter for 10 :

Lawes managed to put your center away with an offload, something Roberts had failed to do all game.

biltongbek wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Tomayto, tomato. word play my friend, but I suppose both could be "most" close.

Yeah but one of those makes you sound like George Bush and one makes yous sound like Colin Firth, which I think we can agree should be the tie-breaker in all arguments of this kind

well I ain't no George Bush... err, I don't think so.

I'm not he knows who he is either though, so that argument is hardly convincing...

Respects to both sides...but us outsiders saw stalemate and a draw would have suited as a conclusion.

Yeah, and us NEUTRALS, thought so too.

SecretFly wrote:Respects to both sides...but us outsiders saw stalemate and a draw would have suited as a conclusion.

Of course you would. it would deny either side the slam!

SecretFly

Has called it correctly.

I think you'll find that England actually completed more passes than Wales did. I think we were attacking you more/more effectively than you were attacking us.

My abiding memories of the game were the welsh kicking the ball repeatedly down Foden's throat and conceding penalties within spitting distance of their defensive tryline.

After four games in a little over twelve months Wales won the last two England the first. So although honours are even Wales are the better in recent form between the two teams.

England played very well last week. But they are twelve months behind Wales progress in development and transitioning new players.

You mean statistically speaking maesteg?

Ha ha ha...! Well those are the stats and facts. Wales are a better team than 12 mo this ago. England appear to not be so good.