Why was wales grand slam so spectacular?

S x 3.

S S S.

Or more commonly known as Second Season Syndrome.

We often see young players bursting onto the international scene and making a huge impression only for their brightness to fade after a while as coaches and teams analyse the players strengths and weaknesses. They can then struggle for a period before they adapt their game or another unknown threat bursts into their team and catches the attention of the analysts.

Eg. Chris Ashton - Burst onto the international scene matched the 6ns try-scoring record and seemed unstoppable after that try against the ozzies. But then, what happened? Now, you could point the finger at the rest of the team, as hes a winger, and respectively wingers tend to score more when their teams on top, of course.

So perhaps another example.....

Priestland - Unexpectedly started at 10 during the world cup warm ups and we can all remember the performances he backed that up with at the world cup itself. This 6nations though, teams had defensive patterns to put him under pressure, they'd analysed his weaknesses and as such, we saw him struggle against England and he hasnt been at his best since.

Now, those are a bit off topic, but back-up the theory of "second season syndrome".

Back to the title, why was Wales grand slam so much more spectacular than 2005 or 2008? Because every side had obviously worked tactics to stifle this welsh side, as they knew exactly how they were going to play after the performances at the world cup. Every side tried their own way of stopping the flow of ball to the welsh backs, they tried to exploit the perceived welsh weakness of the lineout.

But, despite everyone knowing what they had to do to stop this welsh side, none were capable of doing so. The welsh side showed grit beyond most of their tender years, I've no doubt the effect of the defeat to France at the world cup is the sort of hurt these young players needed to spur them on mentally as a group.

Ireland away and England at HQ summed it up for me. They had a collective mental toughness against both of those sides, and I've no doubt that a year ago, both of those games would have been would have resulted in a close result, but no winning cigar.

I know a few have mentioned that they see this welsh side as different to the GS teams gone by recently, and I echo that sentiment.

I think thats why you guys may have to get used to us welsh being a little more excited than usual, we've seen too many false dawns, we can spot them a mile-off. This feels different for now, the NH has been unable to stop us this year, and its up we look as we go down south.

The Ozzies seem to be within arms reach, but have skipped by the last couple of games, now we'll start to see if Gatland's given this welsh squad the minerals to be more than fleeting NH grandslammers. To be more than what our rankings suggest we are, near the top of the NH tree, but strugglers against the SH big 3.

For now, I, like most other welsh posters, will bask in the warm glow of the 6nations crown with a hankering for some kangaroo, safe in the knowledge, that this welsh side has the style, the substance and perhaps the mentality to rise to the top, this may have been the missing ingrediant in years gone by.

I think quantity rather than mentality was the missing ingredient. But i did enjoy reading your post.

Thing is though a young side the Welsh have a mix of experience, some were capped six months ago, others played in the last grandslam, some were capped in between and three key men were around for all three of the grandslams.

I think there was a JPR Williams article in the Telegraph a while back that said when Wales won three GS's in the 70 they only used 20 different players. Wales had used more than that in their first outing this year and nearer one hundred over the last three GS's.

Hate to pee on bonfires but i'm one of many neutral observers who reckon the Welsh slam was not that convincing and that in fact if they'd played the English last game, would have lost.

More 'a job well done' than spectacular. The 2005 GS was more exciting.

NewTraditionalHaka wrote:Hate to pee on bonfires but i'm one of many neutral observers who reckon the Welsh slam was not that convincing and that in fact if they'd played the English last game, would have lost.

One stream of pee would not put out the bonfire mate, a Grandslam is a big deal.

Would be interested to hear your reasoning though. I thought Wales played on of their best, maybe accurately described as most sensible, games against the French. I don't think England played their best game against the Irish, though fair play to them the conditions were appalling.

Not losing to the current England team is simple, don't give away kickable penalties. Ireland were a long way on the wrong side of the penalty count.

I think it was 'spectacular' (if that is the right word, perhaps 'hyped' might be more appropriate) cos it equaled the 3GS achievement of the famous 70's team . Defeating SH teams must be the immediate objective to build tho

Actually I have to say I felt a bit deflated by it. I think Wales are a very good side but I don't think they had the courage to really unleash the power.

The defence was extremely good and I know that great teams are built on strong defence but after the world cup and the way we played then I was really hoping for some demolitions.

I don't think Wales played to their full potential and it disappointed me. Great achievement but still a niggling doubt in my mind that it wasn't quite what it appears.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:I think it was 'spectacular' (if that is the right word, perhaps 'hyped' might be more appropriate) cos it equaled the 3GS achievement of the famous 70's team . Defeating SH teams must be the immediate objective to build tho

Definitely it is the key objective this year so that we can get that esteemed seeding for RWC 2015.

NewTraditionalHaka wrote:Hate to pee on bonfires but i'm one of many neutral observers who reckon the Welsh slam was not that convincing and that in fact if they'd played the English last game, would have lost.

But they didnt play them last and they didnt lose..... You say "in fact"... so what fact are you talking about.

You also say "i'm one of many neutral observers who reckon the Welsh slam was not that convincing". Who are the others.... Your the first so call neutral that I've heard saying this.

NewTraditonalHaka implies a Kiwi, but your location is Aus.

So which are you, and why are you so worried ? Afraid the NH has at last caught up with the SH are you.... Must be time for some more rule changes then....

I think that Wales have developed very nicely in some areas - there is a mental toughness that they havnt always shown - and patience - and a rock solid defense.

Being critical they do look weak in one or two key areas - half backs for one. Attacking play seems mostly about big guys running hard. - Nothing wrong with that as such - its just almost all they do - which makes defending against them easier. In contrast Ireland seem to have a lot of variety in attack and are therefore more dangerous- they just have lots of other problems.

I think its enough for the NH at the moment but cant help thinking that the best of the SH will find better ways of shutting down the big guys when Wales attack and finding holes to run around them when they are defending.

Wales did after all lose against Oz in the autumn playing at home - and despite the close scoreline a lot of the reviews said that it was fairly comfortable for the Australians. Time will tell

mckay1402 wrote:Actually I have to say I felt a bit deflated by it. I think Wales are a very good side but I don't think they had the courage to really unleash the power.

The defence was extremely good and I know that great teams are built on strong defence but after the world cup and the way we played then I was really hoping for some demolitions.

I don't think Wales played to their full potential and it disappointed me. Great achievement but still a niggling doubt in my mind that it wasn't quite what it appears.

May be due to the long run without a win that the majority of this team were exposed to has drilled a wish to win at all costs. I have read a few murmurs that the final penalty awarded to Wales should have been put between the posts or ran to increase the score over a deflated French team. Personally I was happy to see the game finish and Wales a worthy winner of the Grandslam.

NTH, pee away mate. Pee away. Difference of opinions are a okay with me.

I think the welsh win at twickenham is a bit understated, the only win in the previous 24 years there was teh incredible game of 2 halves in 2008.

England have an extraordinary record at HQ in the 6nations.

Maybe the result would have been different had Wales vs England been last, but perhaps the English resurgence would have been different if they had 2 of Ireland/Wales/France first up instead of Scotland/Italy. All if's, but's and maybe's.

Some will say the welsh rode their luck, and I'd be one of them, but to win a grandslam in the 6ns, you need your slice of the luck pie, and I'm a big believer in that you cook your own luck pie.

Barney, the 2005 GS was probably more exciting, but not built on anything resembling sustainable rugby. Thats my point I guess.

mckay1402 wrote:Actually I have to say I felt a bit deflated by it. I think Wales are a very good side but I don't think they had the courage to really unleash the power... I don't think Wales played to their full potential and it disappointed me.

It's not just me, then!

Comfort wrote:
Barney, the 2005 GS was probably more exciting, but not built on anything resembling sustainable rugby. Thats my point I guess.

Mine too

"I think quantity rather than mentality was the missing ingredient."

Wales do have depth, they have strength and they have players coming through the system more so now than for the last thirty plus years. If you have a sturdy backbone like that then you are more certain of dealing with the abject situations that injury and lack of form through at you.

Spectacular! that's a new one for me. The Ireland game aside Wales were efficient at best but had more than enough to win the tournament with something to spare. Wales have not played that well for most of the tornament, however they have a strong defence and can strike when it matters. There remains a steely resilience but Wales need to kick on and bring the dynamism back to their game. All the pieces are in place so I'm not in the least bit worried about us taking any side on. However, this Grand Slam was a win for efficiency and pragmatism as opposed to being Spectacular in any way.

NewTraditionalHaka wrote:Hate to pee on bonfires but i'm one of many neutral observers who reckon the Welsh slam was not that convincing and that in fact if they'd played the English last game, would have lost.

+1

Interesting the flak Priestland has got, yet England, Italy and France quite often had three men covering his movement, sign of respect in what he can do in open play. Jon Davies superb performances this 6Ns was a direct result of been give a few yards extra space due to the oppositions coverage on RP.

To get back on topic, the Wales team were more balanced, and didnt appear to have any "stars" in the first as opposed to the 08 and 05 slam teams. There seemed to be a genuine Team Ethos this year in the welsh camp and not a "fake perma-tan" or "naturally talented world class" player to distract them from the task at hand.

It is this ethos which has seen them victorious dispite playing not at the top of their game, and you have to take into account that most of the team are four years off their peak.

Quite true about England who progressed rapidly during the tournament, it would have been interesting to have seen them play Wales last match instead of first................. you never know!!

If If If If - On our day lads, on our day

I do think this team has genuine quality about it but they have to cut loose a bit I think. Having said that a good defence is going to be key to beating Australia.

I don't think the slam was spectacular and might even consider not buying it on DVD even though I have the other two.

Was it spectacular?

From a pure rugby view it was a poor 6 nations and one to forget, I would have said the same thing if England had won the Slam before anyone has a go at me.

Here's to a better 2013 6 Nations.

Here's to a better 2013 6 Nations

Beat France away and it's number 4

HERSH wrote:Was it spectacular?

...

Here's to a better 2013 6 Nations.

+1. The last 2 years have (as a neutral) been somewhat disappointing quality wise. The atmosphere is fantastic, the rugby needs to match.

I don't know about that, Hersh. Ireland v Wales was a cracking Test match.

I'm with you Kiwi

Ire v Wal was ok but in the end the Ref decided the game not the players.

mckay1402 wrote:I do think this team has genuine quality about it but they have to cut loose a bit I think. Having said that a good defence is going to be key to beating Australia.

I don't think the slam was spectacular and might even consider not buying it on DVD even though I have the other two.

The other two DVD's might feel a touch lonely on the shelf without their little brother...?

That aside, yes this GS was more pragmatic than romantic. But it was so important to win too to kick on from the fantastic achievements made at the RWC and not let the loss in the semi final put us down.

Wales started their opening games with plenty of intent. Though I think their attacking grace eased off as there was a very realistic chance of grinding out a win at HQ followed by the possibility of more dashing rugby in the last two home games. Unfortunately the pace of the Italy game was slowed so dramatically by George Clancy's interpretations of the break down, though once we overcame them we just had to hang on and nail it all at home against France.

It is hardly a fairytale championship, the script would make a lousy movie. But it is better to have won a Grandslam than to have made a mistake and not...! Gives a bit more confidence before the summer tour.

THough everyone seems very happy that we have won it, there is a resounding sense of it being our third in a short space of time and to a degree becoming more commonplace. THere was a large gap between 1978 and 2005.

Kiwireddevil wrote:The last 2 years have (as a neutral) been somewhat disappointing quality wise. The atmosphere is fantastic, the rugby needs to match.

Last years had hardly a stand out game. This years had some down to the wire nail biters. Ireland vs Wales, Scotland vs England, Italy vs England, France vs Ireland and England vs Wales all good matches, difficult wins.

Wales + B.S.= Hype!!


The Welsh side is good , but nowhere near as good as some people (The Welsh) are proclaiming. They Narrowly beat an England side, freshly emerged from the ashes of the Johnson era, and won with more a helping hand from that perennial friend of England, Steve Walsh.

Nevertheless, win they did, and nothing can take away from their G.S, but i do think that come the summer when they take on the Sh Giants, then we will be able to assess just how Good, or how over-hyped they really are.

Personally, i'll go for the over-hyped!

“Back to the title, why was Wales grand slam so much more spectacular than 2005 or 2008? Because every side had obviously worked tactics to stifle this welsh side, as they knew exactly how they were going to play after the performances at the world cup. Every side tried their own way of stopping the flow of ball to the welsh backs, they tried to exploit the perceived welsh weakness of the lineout.

But, despite everyone knowing what they had to do to stop this welsh side, none were capable of doing so.”

If there was a side that set out to win their matches by dominant defence after kicking the ball as far away from their own try line as possible this year it was Wales. How many of Wales’ tries came from turnovers for example?

This year’s tournament was dominated by pragmatic game plans, way too much kicking and tighter defences. As evidenced by the lowest number of tries scored since Italy joined the Championship in 2000. Wales had their moments, but overall it wasn’t spectacular in an entertaining rugby sense. I suspect England would have been labelled boring had they won a slam playing the same way.

However, you are right to be more optimistic about the future than in 2005 and 2008.

english warrior wrote:
Nevertheless, win they did, and nothing can take away from their G.S, but i do think that come the summer when they take on the Sh Giants, then we will be able to assess just how Good, or how over-hyped they really are.

That is exactly what everyone else is saying...!

maestegmafia wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:The last 2 years have (as a neutral) been somewhat disappointing quality wise. The atmosphere is fantastic, the rugby needs to match.

Last years had hardly a stand out game. This years had some down to the wire nail biters. Ireland vs Wales, Scotland vs England, Italy vs England, France vs Ireland and England vs Wales all good matches, difficult wins.

But the quality was poor, I've seen Colts teams have more idea in attack.

2012 was a very dull 6 nations almost as bad as the RWC non-event.

I cant take any more of this bullsh*t....

3 Grand Slams in 7 years.... That stat says something.

But the churlish WUMs that are on this board cant accept that.

Not one sincere congratulations, and saying "Well done, BUT..." isnt sincere.

That's it, I'm logging off for the last time, so you can bicker as much as you like....

Bye bye

and well done, but it was a dull way to win a Slam.

Hound_of_Harrow wrote:“Back to the title, why was Wales grand slam so much more spectacular than 2005 or 2008? Because every side had obviously worked tactics to stifle this welsh side, as they knew exactly how they were going to play after the performances at the world cup. Every side tried their own way of stopping the flow of ball to the welsh backs, they tried to exploit the perceived welsh weakness of the lineout.

But, despite everyone knowing what they had to do to stop this welsh side, none were capable of doing so.”

If there was a side that set out to win their matches by dominant defence after kicking the ball as far away from their own try line as possible this year it was Wales. How many of Wales’ tries came from turnovers for example?

This year’s tournament was dominated by pragmatic game plans, way too much kicking and tighter defences. As evidenced by the lowest number of tries scored since Italy joined the Championship in 2000. Wales had their moments, but overall it wasn’t spectacular in an entertaining rugby sense. I suspect England would have been labelled boring had they won a slam playing the same way.

However, you are right to be more optimistic about the future than in 2005 and 2008.

Some good points there mate.

But the reason Wales look to a brighter future is more to do with the quantity of players coming through than anything else. Quantity and Quality go hand in hand. One breeds the other as players push each other harder for possible selection.

Deleted

Majorroadworks- Don't slam the door on the way out!!

english warrior wrote:Wales + B.S.= Hype!!


The Welsh side is good , but nowhere near as good as some people (The Welsh) are proclaiming. They Narrowly beat an England side, freshly emerged from the ashes of the Johnson era, and won with more a helping hand from that perennial friend of England, Steve Walsh.

Nevertheless, win they did, and nothing can take away from their G.S, but i do think that come the summer when they take on the Sh Giants, then we will be able to assess just how Good, or how over-hyped they really are.

Personally, i'll go for the over-hyped!

You surprise me, Warrior!

My context of spectacular is in relation to the substance and grit wales played with, perhaps a more SA dynamic than the old romanticism of Wales offloading the ball and running from anywhere. Thats why i consider it spectacular, and i will not apologise for it or change my stance

Hounds of Harrow, I do agree with most of your points, absolutely, however, Wales were not pragmatic, they were smart, you may want to see the try-scoring charts for clarification of that.

Being smart is something we've lacked plenty of in the past!

Winning is preferable to losing, no one's going to disagree with that; but after playing some decent football in the first couple of games, we didn't really play that much in the rest of the tournament. That's the disappointment.

NewTraditionalHaka wrote:Hate to pee on bonfires but i'm one of many neutral observers who reckon the Welsh slam was not that convincing and that in fact if they'd played the English last game, would have lost.

I think it has been our best triumph out of the mentioned 3 considering the small gap between the top 4 teams and how Wales are looking as team; young, winning, phsycholoigcally all there, etc...

With regards to the highlighted statement (made by you), you beat Ireland due to forward domination and your points came from complete dominance in the scurm. You drove Ireland backwards again and again. Now considering in the last game we were able to put out our best team, considering that we'd already beaten Ireland away from home, considering we'd beat you away from home whilst driving your lot backwards in the scrum (something we also did to France) it makes that statement ridiculous. Before you mention it, yes we would have also chopped Tuilagi down again had you spun it out to him as a 'last resort'.

Why is it when Wales grind out a win they get congratulated on showing grit an determination, blah blah etc...

Yet!

If England does the same we are called boring and negative?

If you want to pee on the Welsh bonfire point out what has happened to every other team in recent years after they won the 6 nations....especially Welsh slam winners!

The team in its current form has really only been around since the build up to the world cup, and only looked good since then. For me its about to face its "second season" test.

I see no reason why Wales shouldnt go on to at leats give Aus a hard time this summer, but then I expected England to be a force at the world cup, Ireland to not spend two years putting in only very rare performances, and France were suppossed to go on and dominate European rugby at every level.

I'm fed up with this inconsistency on 606v2, I can't take it any more.

english warrior wrote:Wales + B.S.= Hype!!


The Welsh side is good , but nowhere near as good as some people (The Welsh) are proclaiming. They Narrowly beat an England side, freshly emerged from the ashes of the Johnson era, and won with more a helping hand from that perennial friend of England, Steve Walsh.

Nevertheless, win they did, and nothing can take away from their G.S, but i do think that come the summer when they take on the Sh Giants, then we will be able to assess just how Good, or how over-hyped they really are.

Personally, i'll go for the over-hyped!

WOW
Massive chip .................... I have some cod with a few of those

I would say most of the Welsh posters have stated that theu didnt play to their potential this series.

You can argue that a side who plays poorly yet wins 5 games on the trot has potential to be a great side

Alot of this Welsh side are young with very little experience in regional/club level yet alone international exposure, on the plus side their are quiite a few players who will be pushing for first team places as well........ Ryan Jones, Shingler, Turnbull, Mitchell, Scott Williams, Tovey, Matthew Morgan etc etc.

It'll be quite interesting to hear your views come the Summer and Autumn Internationals on how Wales and England are progressing

because Wales are great and England are pants?

People have double standards, its something Ive brought up numerous times, every nation has things laid at their feet. Perhaps its more to do with England traditionally being associated with 10-man rugby and Wales more associated with the running game and getting ball-wide.

Both stereotypes, but perhaps thats why theres a difference to the people that have levelled that accusation at England HERSH.

HERSH wrote:Why is it when Wales grind out a win they get congratulated on showing grit an determination, blah blah etc...

Yet!

If England does the same we are called boring and negative?

Or how about when England win the 6 Nations (or come 2nd doh!) they're the best team in the world and on their way to glory?

But!

When Wales win it was a poor 6 Nations, England were rebuilding, everyone else was rebuilding, the refs did this and that amongst other infinite excuses.

Who said England are the best team in the world?

We're the 4th best.

Comfort wrote:because Wales are great and England are pants?

People have double standards, its something Ive brought up numerous times, every nation has things laid at their feet. Perhaps its more to do with England traditionally being associated with 10-man rugby and Wales more associated with the running game and getting ball-wide.

Both stereotypes, but perhaps thats why theres a difference to the people that have levelled that accusation at England HERSH.

How anyone could watch the Eng Scotland or Eng Irleand games and come to the conclussion that they play boring 10 man rugby is simply beyond me.

Morganweg- When Wales win it is by definition a POOR G.S., not for the players, or their fans, who deserve to take all they can from it and be very proud, but lets get real, and lets be brutally honest, there are only 2 NH sides who can compete with the SH big 3 (and thats only sometimes) but Wales cannot, and will not be able to improve on their forbears who have failed dismally against these sides, both home and away.

Therefore, i feel that if Wales win, then the 6 nations is devalued, because a good England and France would win it. Not a Wum, not a pee take, but the truth and deep down every Welshman knows this. The only teams that can compete with the big 3 sh teams are the ones that i've said. I know it comes across as dismissive and i wish i could sugarcoat it, but i can't.

Nor do i think that England or France deserved the Title because Wales were better! But thats what is sad for NH rugby.