It's about Samoa a.k.a. you just weren't looking (again)

This is going to be a long piece, but I think it's worth saying

I've been saying for a while that Samoa have the potential to be a really top side. After they beat Australia I thought they had a genuine chance of reaching the semis or even final at the WC, and whilst they didn't, they were involved in two very even matches with sides who did go on to threaten in the later stages.

Here I am going to attempt to explain why Samoa should be treated as an elite side on a level with the 6N and RC sides. In fact I would argue that they are clearly better than several of those sides, whereas only NZ are glaringly better than Samoa. Samoa start as equals with France next week.

I'll start by discussing tonight's performance. It's been widely documented, not least on these boards (yawn?) that Wales are off form at the moment, and that is true, however they are not an awful side as they have been in some recent years. Look at it like this - Samoa just beat the Grand Slam champions, at home, comfortably. Impressive whatever their current form.

Consider further that Samoa missed 11 points in kicks, including two sitters, and gifted most of Wales' points via an interception and (mostly needless) penalties. Makes you realise how good the rest of their game must have been.

Here are some reasons why they were such an outstanding side tonight. Consider carefully.

1. Good set piece scrum and mauling - by the end of the match they could claim to have had the better of both
2. Competed well in the lineout - again they seemed to have the better of it over the 80 minutes
3. Fantastic speed of recycling and good ball retention
4. One of the world's best defences which gives them momentum even without the ball
5. Frequent turnovers
6. Good decision making about when to commit men to the breakdown (for those turnovers) and when not to
7. In attack, solid running, good distribution and excellent offloading
8. A number of players with the ability to create something from nothing
9. Their decision making and execution when kicking from hand puts 6 nations sides of recent years to shame
10. Killer instinct, shown in all three of their tries - this is an improvement from last years WC

Several of the above traits like 3,6 and 9 are typically associated with the very best, most well prepared sides. They also show that Samoa have brains as well as brawn. How many of these 10 areas above (which cover most of what is needed to win a game of rugby) would your country beat Samoa in? More than half? Unlikely, unless you are New Zealand. I'm an England fan. We might beat them on points 1 and 2. The others are probably ties or Samoa wins. Looks like we'd be relying on a fair few interceptions and silly penalties then...

Very well, you might say, but they don't usually beat top sides... well here's why their previous lack of wins against top teams is misleading.

Historically Samoa, in common with most Tier 2 teams, have been consistently denied adequate preparation time and player availability, except (sometimes) at World Cups, where a number of their best performances have come. It seems things have got better recently and these haven't been such big problems for Samoa's recent games (although they still have been for others, like Fiji.) Also over the years the number of Samoans playing for top clubs has increased and no doubt made it easier to build an efficient, professional side capable of excelling in the set pieces and tactics as well as just broken play.

So why haven't they beaten more top teams over the last couple of years? Well, they've threatened increasingly but without much luck. Here are their games against top teams in the last 2 years. There are only six, so it's not too long...

Ireland, Away, 2010: L20-10
I don't know much about this game but Ireland weren't too shabby in those days and ran SA very close the previous week losing 21-23 - so they scored more vs SA than vs Samoa

England, Away, 2010: L26-13
England had just hammered Australia the previous week yet the scoreline against Samoa was actually closer and England scored fewer. Matt Banahan of all people was influential for England having a big hand (literally (sorry)) in two tries.

Australia, Away, 2011, W32-23
Arguably Samoa's greatest result. Australia's side was experimental but retained many of their best players and couldn't break Samoa even when Beale and Genia were hauled on for the last 30. This was also an Aussie side on red-hot form having just beaten South Africa and then NZ to clinch the 3N. Note they put more past NZ than past Samoa.
A particularly spectacular moment of Tier 1 arrogance was observed when Samoa took an early 0-3 lead in this game - the Australian commentator magnanimously observed that it was a great achievement for Samoa and suggested their fans would be taking photos of the scoreboard. Maybe some of them did later when it said things like 0-17, 16-32 and 23-32 (FT).

Wales, Neutral (Home-ish), 2011, L17-10
A disappointing loss albeit to a Welsh side coming into one of their best runs of form in recent years. Tusi Pisi was missed, they conceded one try to a fine individual effort from Halfpenny and lack of cutting edge cost Samoa as they too often visited the Wales 5m line for no reward.

South Africa, Neutral / Home, 2011, L13-5
South Africa did a good job of shutting Samoa out in the first half, but a fine rally from the Samoans endured throughout the second half and left SA rattled and scoreless in that half. Again a lack of decisive blows, and Paul Williams' sending off, saw Samoa fall short. SA's previous two games were wins over Wales and NZ, both of which saw SA score more points than they did against 14-man Samoa.

Scotland, Home, 2012, L17-16
Scotland completed a highly successful summer tour when a last minute try secured a victory in Apia. I think this was, along with the Wales WC game, Samoa's biggest disappointment in recent years. They reportedly dominated the game but missed their chances, allowing the Scots to steal a win - a real wasted opportunity.

They have been unlucky to have been up against sides on top form for many of these games. A lack of big-game experience has also probably cost them a couple of wins, particularly when they have become too cautious around the opposition tryline. However, take note of the points I make where repeatedly sides have failed to match their points total from their previous games, featuring the likes of SA, Aus, NZ (twice), Wales, etc, against the supposedly lesser opposition. Indeed the highest total Samoa has conceded in the above games is 26, and that was mainly due to Banahan having freakishly long arms. Not bad considering these matches were mostly away from home against dangerous, in-form sides. Maybe you thought I was a bit silly to say Samoa had one of the world's best defences in point 4 above. Still think so?

In conclusion, even if this assessment of Samoa is a bit bold - and I will stop shy of pronouncing them a top 5 team until they beat France next week - I think this kind of opinion needs to be expressed, in order to redress the balance - for most of the time we are far too shy of giving teams like Samoa credit, calling all their wins upsets, even though they have achieved them with regularity when the playing field has been equal. We have even idolised the likes of Tuilagi, Mapasua, Lemi, Pisi, Fotuali'i, Fa'asavalu, Treviranus, Johnstone, Sapolu etc. at club level whilst somehow expecting a team with all these players in it to be rubbish.

Can anyone actually give me an intelligent argument for why a team like Wales (or England) should be expected to beat a team like Samoa? The general attitude seems to be "I don't mean to disrespect the opposition, but we should win this one, it's Samoa", a sentiment backed up by precisely zero reasoning. I don't want to attack Wales specifically - commentators in every established nation are guilty of these lazy dismissals of less privileged unions, speaking of which...

... I'll wrap up slightly preachily with an account of a previous repetition of this cycle. Argentina in around 2004-2007 were a very good side and getting steadily stronger, a rise that any keen follower of rugby should have noted - it was even spelled out clearly in the world rankings. They had beaten France something like 5 times in a row as the world headed into RWC 2007. As someone who took a bit of interest in this new kid on the block, I was staggered at the widespread assumption that France were strong favourites for the opening game of the tournament, against a side they always lost to, and when I pointed this out to people at enough length, they usually agreed. No-one in our household was surprised when Argentina won for a sixth time in a row. Our interest in Argentina was justified and we enjoyed seeing them further showcase their abilities in reaching the semi-finals.

By contrast the response of most of the rugby world was a barely-challenged assertion that the opening game was a historic shock, a real slip up for France (presumably their sixth slip up in a row?) France were duly installed as favourites in the 3/4th playoff against Argentina... and of course were utterly thumped, yet again.

For crying out loud, let's not be so lazily blind this time. Next time Samoa play Wales or a similar opponent, they should be favourites.

The sad end of the story goes like this - that playoff in Paris was for Argentinians the joyful climax of a golden era, soon to give way to retirements and loss of form. For everyone else it had been a golden era that, despite mountains of evidence, wasn't noticed, acknowledged or appreciated until it was gone.

Da iawn. Nawr cer i blaen y dosboarth a derbyn seren aur. Pidyn!

Summary for lazy readers: Samoa have been steadily becoming a top 8 if not top 5 side and most people still don't realise this. Our dismissals of non-established teams are arrogant and stupid. Argentina were a very good team for a prolonged period ending in 2007 and most of us failed to notice this despite all the evidence, which resulted in a wonderful rugby team never being appreciated and enjoyed as they should have been. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Wi11 wrote:Summary for lazy readers: Samoa have been steadily becoming a top 8 if not top 5 side and most people still don't realise this. Our dismissals of non-established teams are arrogant and stupid. Argentina were a very good team for a prolonged period ending in 2007 and most of us failed to notice this despite all the evidence, which resulted in a wonderful rugby team never being appreciated and enjoyed as they should have been. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Even shorter summary. How about speaking for yourself rather than everyone else?

I'm not trying to speak for anyone else. I just don't like to see a good performance or team go unappreciated and so I'm trying to highlight that Samoa are a good team. I've tried to edit my opening post so it can't come across as provocative or confrontational. Now can we talk about rugby? I've highlighted the areas where I think Samoa excelled tonight and in recent games, and I think there is enough there to suggest they could be a top 5 team. Do people agree or am I fantasising? Where would you say they rank currently?

Thing about Samoa is theyre like Argentina. A team of Rugby Nomads. They dont have a professional home league and instead have their players ply their trade around the world.

They don't get as many tests as other countries so struggle to maintain any kind of consistency. They have had their thrashings in the past with 50's and a 100 pointer against them by NZ in recent years.

One thing that has helped them is that have in the last 40 years had a large and ever increasing presence in NZ and Oz, South Auckland probably having as many as Samoa itself.

By growing up and living in NZ they learn their rugby in NZ and those good enough are still able to play for their former country through their nationality.

The other thing about Samoan rugby is as a race, whether they were born in or migrated to NZ, on a population basis they must have the most talented of any country.

Michael Jones, Joe Stanley, Frank Bunce, Tana Umaga, Keven Mealamu, Mils Muliana, Jerry Collins, Peter Fatialofa, Bee Gee Williams, Ma'a Nonu, Inga Tuigamala of past and present fame. Not to mention the Tuilagi brothers, Graeme and Steven Bachop, Digby Ioane, Jerome Kaino, Olo Brown, Victor Vito. Even Josh Kronfield, Christian Cullen and Sonny Bill Williams have Samoan blood. The list goes on...Chris Masoe, the Mauger brothers, Julian Savea and many more.

All from a country of 2 or 300,000. Samoa is certainly a country capable of churning out good rugby players. Some the very best ever.

The contribution that the Pacific Island nations make to rugby union is the most undervalued and underestimated benefit that rugby union has going for it.

Taylorman I think you are spot on.... These guys are just built perfectly for rugby and contact sport. I read somewhere that in the us and professional NFL football Samoans from American samoa are 40 times more likely to play pro football than mainland Americans.

Nevertheless, without trying to sound downhearted, Wales are better than they showed last night. They currently look like a hapless team of guys who just don't want to be there or are just expecting to come away with victory.

They lack hunger.

Given this Samoa squad lost 2 matches at home to us in the summer tour this year (Samoa has been notoriously difficult for travelling teams) I would state that they probably aren't as good as posters are making them out to be.... We have been the worst team in the 6n for a number of years. If everyone was firing, both teams played first choice I'd expect all the 6n sides to beat them at the moment but half of that is due to players been rugby nomads and the national team having very little to work with unlike other pro test sides.

Talent wise these guys are 2nd to none bar NZ, given half of them are born and raised in NZ to Samoan parents etc.

Fa0019
Yes i have heard that statistic before, The NFL player scouts and agents refer to Samoa and Tonga as the Football islands. We are just lucky that the Polynesians prefer our game.

World rankings, plain and simple. That is why teams 'expect' and are 'confident of a win', etc. It is not about disrespect or underestimating. The world rankings are the only baromoeter we have. It doesn't always reflect form and takes a few games to catch up, so you'll now see Wales slide a few places to reflect our poor form. But it is fairly accurate in my opinion. And the opinion of many others on here who point that out to the Welsh. If you look at the last 6N Wales' easier games (although not too easy) were against Italy and Scotland, ranked a few places below. The hardest were Ireland (ranked 1 below at the time i think), England (just sneaked a win, ranked above by 1 place I think) and France. We were confident of winning the Scotland and Italy games because we were either above them, and midly confident of getting a result against the ohers because we were in and around the same rankings. Wales do not expect to beat the top 3 because they are ranked above, and true to the rankings we rarely do. The only time we are confident is when we've beaten the rest of the 6n and climb to 4th. Then we get slightly confident about challenging OZ and maybe SA, but never about NZ.

My point is that while we're ranked above Samoa and Argentina by a few places, with a ranking system that is fairly accurate, I do not think it is disrespectful to expect or be confident of a win against a team ranked lower than you. They tend to be lower because they've lost to teams that you also beat (e.g. Scotland).

Or, to put it another way; Samoa were confident of a win against Canada the other night. Is that not disrespectful? Or is it fine because they're ranked higher than them and beat teams who also beat Canada? Samoa and Argentina would be confident of beating Russia or Namibia because they're ranked higher but by applying the same formula that would be disrespectful too and they should not 'expect' to win, right? Which is it?

You do make a good point. For a small population they seem to produce so many excellent rugby players. I feel the big difference over the last few years is the ability to produce good set piece ball. That was evident last night. I actually didn't think Wales were going to win anyway last night because of the type of rugby we are playing at the moment. I'm really not sure what we are trying to do to be honest but I knew once we started to try individual moves it was on the cards. I would have liked to seen Wales be far more aggressive which would have evened up the match as a contest.

Congratulations Samoa, they fully deserved their win and our respect.

Wi11 wrote:Summary for lazy readers: Samoa have been steadily becoming a top 8 if not top 5 side and most people still don't realise this. Our dismissals of non-established teams are arrogant and stupid. Argentina were a very good team for a prolonged period ending in 2007 and most of us failed to notice this despite all the evidence, which resulted in a wonderful rugby team never being appreciated and enjoyed as they should have been. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Thanks ...I'm a lazy reader. I agree totally, Argentina and Samoa are quality sides and don't get the respect they deserve at all. If you consider Wales are the standard bearers for NH rugby right now and both have beaten them that really shows their quality. Ireland are in for a very tough time versus Argentina next week and I'm glad we aren't facing Samoa this autumn because the side that played last night would smash us to pieces.

for the Argentina and Samoa fans.

Wales SHOULD expect to beat samoa at home......just like they should expect to beat scotland, france, england AT HOME.
Samoa were exactly as they were expected to be: fast, furious and strong. Why would anybody be surprised by that. Wales however weren't as they should be expected - week up front and lacking in plan B in the backs.
Samoa are a canny side but you showing a list of predominantly defeats doesn't make me expect them to beat any of the 6n teams when we're at home!

For me the difference was about taking the opportunites. The Samoan tries epitomised the Samoan approach. Priestlands ridiculous kick dead did the same for Wales when they had the whole left field open.

Sometimes you have to keep an awareness of why youre playing this game- to put the ball down over a 68 or so yard line across the field at one end. Some sides just make that look so difficult and confuse it all with 'strategy'

If they're that good they should be invited into the rugby championship. The more the merrier.

Samoa are only good enough for one offs, the AIs stretching their resources. They couldnt sustain a RC campaign. Especially with no ability to host at home.

Theyll forever be rugbys best nomads along with Tonga and Fiji.

I love it, Wales are just getting bested against stronger teams today, but only winning against underperforming teams in recent past???

How many teams would be content with making no line breaks and no visits in the 22 against NZ? NONE?

And how many teams would be happy with no 22 visits and no linebreaks against NZ in 2 tests back to back? NONE?

Then imagine you've done the same against Argentina and Samoa, now does that say more about Welsh performances than Argy or Moan ones, or does is highlight a team that is more than capable of beating these teams and better teams playing so poorly an U15's team could beat them?

Well we're back to the argument that Samoa dont recognised for their ability.

I dont underestimate their ability. Not in last might's match or in previous ones. Like Argentina they have shown a strong competitiveness in previous matches, they have won significant victories, and they have some very talented players.

So no surprises for me that Samoa won last night. And it's evident that more game time they get, the better they'll get. But that's stating the obvious.

Whether they're permanently destined to be "nomads", I don't know, but if they were to turn up in the 6N, they'd make their mark.

Just for the record Fiji are attempting to initiate a junior system inhouse, could pay dividends in a few years.

Just a shame they didn't employ me!

Griff wrote:World rankings, plain and simple.

Samoa may be 9th in the rankings currently but it's a fine line. If Scotland has missed the last minute conversion to win the game in Apia, Samoa would now be 6th, ahead of Wales, Ireland and Argentina. That's just on a two point swing in one match. On top of this you should bear in mind that their ranking probably still suffers from the previous occasions when full strength sides and preparation weren't available.

Griff wrote:
Or, to put it another way; Samoa were confident of a win against Canada the other night. Is that not disrespectful? Or is it fine because they're ranked higher than them and beat teams who also beat Canada? Samoa and Argentina would be confident of beating Russia or Namibia because they're ranked higher but by applying the same formula that would be disrespectful too and they should not 'expect' to win, right? Which is it?

There was and is masses of evidence that Samoa are a better side than Canada, without having to look at the rankings. Samoa have frequently competed well with the top nations, with increasing consistency. Canada by contrast have never come close to threatening a major team in recent years. Also, many of the Samoans are star players at top clubs playing at a high level week in week out.

I think the the subsequent results suggest that the Samoan confidence against Canada was perfectly reasonable, whereas the consensus that they wouldn't be good enough for Wales was misguided.

wi11

If I had a wankre symbol I'd def use it. You show huge disrespect toward Canada and Wales, and favour a Samoan team who have shown improvement but are hardly top class.

You keep regurgatating the point that loads of people mentioned Samoa wouldn't be good enough for wales yet there is no foundation to the pap you are spouting as noone actually said that.

To say you are is way too polite!

I tend to think Wi11 has it spot on Bluesman

You would

Hi thebluesmancometh

I don't disrespect Canada. They are a handy team. Their fly half looks a very good players and their second try against Samoa featured one wonderful piece of deception which any side in the world would have been proud of. Beating Tonga in the World Cup was a serious result and shows that they are no mugs. However I haven't seen any evidence that either as individuals or as a team they are threatening the top level, whereas Samoa clearly are. If Canada beat a top 10 team I will hold my hands up and say I was wrong to dismiss them like this (of course, they are unlikely to be given the chance to prove me wrong, but that is a different story...)

I don't think what I have said is disrespecting Wales either. If I had said "Wales should expect to lose because they are rubbish" that would have been inaccurate and unfair. To the contrary I argued that Samoa's win was impressive precisely because the side they had beaten was a good team. I have no wish to put down Wales here, not least because I am afraid they will give England another stuffing in Cardiff come spring...

With regards to your second point I deliberately avoided pointing fingers because I wanted a fresh discussion, not a "who said what" slanging match. However since you were a bit rude to me I shall quote one example which didn't require me to look to far :p

thebluesmancometh wrote:
a Samoan team who have shown improvement but are hardly top class.

That is, of course, unless you think Wales are not top class. But I would disagree with you on that

whereas the consensus that they wouldn't be good enough for Wales was misguided.

Don't go back on what you said now, you are claiming Welsh fans were disrespectfull, and they said Samoa weren't good enough to play Wales!!

You know what consensus means don't you?

wi11

And you'd be wrong, Wales have beaten noone in the top 3 for a while, and are this minute struggling, and as I said before Canada wouldve beaten them in the last 8 days!!!

retract consensus and replace with "relatively common but not universally held opinion"

And I think based on their respective performances against Samoa Wales would beat Canada. Wales may not have got near the Samoa 22 in the first half hour, but Canada didn't get anywhere near the ball!

Canada got into Samoas 22, Wales didn't, and neither did they get near Argies 22. Canada would best them IMHO!!!

So who of your relatively common opinion that Wales were too good to play Samoa? I saw lots of people give it to Wales by a few points, and many more give it to Samoa by a few points.

There's 82 people in the v2 Superbru pool. 6 picked Samoa to win.

Just for comparison, 8 picked Australia to beat England

(I went for the home team in both matches )

blues - bookies, who generally reflect average public opinion, had Wales 2-9 or so before the game. I don't spend enough time on this board to know if it was different here, although I have certainly seen a few fairly dismissive comments, including your own just now.

Anyway, rather than try to defend parts of my post where I may or may not have been disrespectful, I'd like to discuss this part. Any answers to the below question. Does my assessment of how England would match up seem fair? Or a little harsh on England?

Wi11 wrote:
Here are some reasons why Samoa were such an outstanding side tonight. Consider carefully.

1. Good set piece scrum and mauling - by the end of the match they could claim to have had the better of both
2. Competed well in the lineout - again they seemed to have the better of it over the 80 minutes
3. Fantastic speed of recycling and good ball retention
4. One of the world's best defences which gives them momentum even without the ball
5. Frequent turnovers
6. Good decision making about when to commit men to the breakdown (for those turnovers) and when not to
7. In attack, solid running, good distribution and excellent offloading
8. A number of players with the ability to create something from nothing
9. Their decision making and execution when kicking from hand puts 6 nations sides of recent years to shame
10. Killer instinct, shown in all three of their tries - this is an improvement from last years WC

Several of the above traits like 3,6 and 9 are typically associated with the very best, most well prepared sides. They also show that Samoa have brains as well as brawn. How many of these 10 areas above (which cover most of what is needed to win a game of rugby) would your country beat Samoa in? More than half? Unlikely, unless you are New Zealand. I'm an England fan. We might beat them on points 1 and 2. The others are probably ties or Samoa wins. Looks like we'd be relying on a fair few interceptions and silly penalties then...

I'm not in the superbru pool, yet I picked Samoa to win too.

Until we get the breakdown of Welsh and non welsh picks pete we should hold judgement.

wi11

Who are you talking about in that quote, it is extremely generic and could be said of any winning team in reality!!!

So becuase bookies made Wales favourites the country of Wales disrespected Samoa???

And I dismissed Samoa? Really? I think you need to re look at my comments, I said they would beat Wales!!

blues, I specifically said I wasn't attacking Wales in particular. They happened to be the team Samoa were playing. The assumption that Samoa are a team to be beaten was coming from everyone. So I am not attacking the Welsh and as I have repeatedly said (it's there in the title) I want to talk about Samoa, not the usual Anglo-welsh bickering. As for you personally, whatever you might have predicted for the Wales game, calling Samoa "hardly top class" is unfairly dismissive, I think

It isn't because they are not top class, and for numerous reasons that are not Samoas fault.

But when it comes to even keel time in the WC they do not contest, IMO top class teams make Semi's and finals regularly!!! So no it is not unfairly dismissive, infact it isn't even dismissive. If it was at all dismissive I wouldve called a Wales win, or more accurately I wouldve called a large Wales win.

And your title is hardly neutral (again) with numerous threads blaming welsh fans for underestimating the Argies, it is clearly toward welsh fans!

Dismissive, Disrespect, theres a ton of garbage spouted on these boards by a certain few!!!

thebluesmancometh wrote:It isn't because they are not top class, and for numerous reasons that are not Samoas fault.

But when it comes to even keel time in the WC they do not contest, IMO top class teams make Semi's and finals regularly!!! So no it is not unfairly dismissive, infact it isn't even dismissive. If it was at all dismissive I wouldve called a Wales win, or more accurately I wouldve called a large Wales win.

And your title is hardly neutral (again) with numerous threads blaming welsh fans for underestimating the Argies, it is clearly toward welsh fans!

Dismissive, Disrespect, theres a ton of garbage spouted on these boards by a certain few!!!

At the moment they are top class and have been for about a year, maybe two. Perhaps you can point out some ways in which they were not top class on Friday? The only areas I can think of are place-kicking and discipline.

And of course my title is neutral. It sounds like for some reason you assume I was referring to the Wales - RG game, despite the fact that I haven't mentioned it at any point in my opening post or subsequently in this thread. Surely it's clear that the "again" refers to when Argentina were ignored in 06-07, which I moan about at length in the OP...

I wouldn't say it's clear, no. My first thought when seeing your title was that you meant Wales were caught not respecting/expecting for the 2nd week running. Harder to see that you actually meant Argentina's 06-07 season just from the time.

Wi11 - you make a fair argument about the competitiveness of Samoa. Unlike the "surprise" about Argentina's performance last week, I think you're right in making a general assumption about the majority view on who was likely to win the match against Wales.

You cite a number of examples in your OP of how close Samoa have come in previous matches. The Ireland match you reference was a very close result until a last minute try by O'Gara making the scoreline look more comfortable than it actually was. I'd say for that reason,most Irish fans would not view Samoa as an assumed win.

The Superbru picks lie heavily in favour of a Welsh win. Allowing for a good chunk of those being Welsh fans, it's not surprising that home fans would go in favour of their team in what would be a 50/50 match based on previous results by Samoa. However, I don't know when the picks were done. If the majority were after the Argentina match, then I'd agree that pickers were misguided given Wales poor performance last week, but heart may still have ruled head in that scenario given it was a home match. Welsh fans may have picked in hope rather than expectation.

The good thing is that the next time Samoa play, there'll be a lot more wariness.

How do you think they'll go against what is a resurgent French side? France still need the win, unless Eng get beaten by SA.

My point is that while we're ranked above Samoa and Argentina by a few places, with a ranking system that is fairly accurate, I do not think it is disrespectful to expect or be confident of a win against a team ranked lower than you. They tend to be lower because they've lost to teams that you also beat

[quote]
Can't remember who said this but argentina were one place below Wales on a tiny fraction of a point difference.

TJ

It doesn't matter to me what the points say, IMO I expect a decent welsh showing to be beating teams above them, and below them, and frankly Wales spend more time in the bottom half of the top 10 beating the likes of England, France and Ireland above them.

However I also expect this good Wales team to be beating the likes of Argentina and Samoa.

You ask An Aus or SA supporter if they should be beating the NH teams and they'll say yes despite those teams being slightly behind them in the rankings!!

Of course you should expect it. However its no surprise nor disgrace to be beaten by a team of the quality of argentina. Samoa is more of an upset.

Neither were an upset though. We're not talking post game, your slating people pre game for expecting to win, whats changed?

[quote="TJ"]

My point is that while we're ranked above Samoa and Argentina by a few places, with a ranking system that is fairly accurate, I do not think it is disrespectful to expect or be confident of a win against a team ranked lower than you. They tend to be lower because they've lost to teams that you also beat

Can't remember who said this but argentina were one place below Wales on a tiny fraction of a point difference.

Argentina were 8th and Wales were 6th. Wales were on 82.26 points, Argentina 78.63. Wales were actually closer to South Africa in 3rd place (84.69) at the start of this series than to Argentina. Samoa were 10th at the start of the AIs with 76.23 points. According to the IRB world rankings archive, anyway.

It's just points, and doesn't account for teams, playing poorly, injuries, or whatever. But it's the best we've got and I still think it's a useful tool for judging favourites for matches. The bookies also made Wales favourites for both Arg and Samoa, so they too must take some responsibility for this disrespect.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Neither were an upset though. We're not talking post game, your slating people pre game for expecting to win, whats changed?

Never did - that was not the point.

The point was that by claiming (as some people did) that for Wales to be beaten by argentina was a "disgrace" and the "worst performance ever" is disrespectful to a good argentina side who deserved their win and who were clearly the better side.

Enough. Let it drop.

Don't start him off griff with the D word...

Your either quoting wums or purposely misusing why people think it was such a poor performance.

Firstly Wales would expect line breaks and visits to 22 let alone tries against the best on the planet, yet didn't do any of the above against lesser teams of Argentina and Samoa, thats right wales have created nothing of note in 2 games, and most of the poor play had very little to do with the opposition.

Are you even a rugby follower? There is a huge difference to being beaten by the better team and offering nothing to a game!!