If Wales finished 3rd would you class it as an achievement?

First topic message reminder :

In 2006 Wales finished 5th.
In 2009, Wales finished 4th.

In 2012 Wales showed no bottle or metal out in Australia and played like brainfarts in the autumn.

If they finish 3rd this year (especially after the embarrassing performance vs Ireland), I would consider that an achievement.

Yes it would be progress for Wales because they are currently at a low point. Plus Wales have been very inconsistent in the 6 nations - it's normally GS or 4th/below.

3rd or above would show some consistency from Wales in a year they cannot win the slam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship

All time 6 nations table doesn't suggest Wales have been the best NH side.

France have been the best but not by much.

Last 8 years - 3 Grand Slams more than any other nation - RWC semi-final in 2011. Enjoy your odd victory over the SH as do Ireland and Scotland but it's about winning something tangible. You almost did it in 2011 - Good luck again this year

RubyGuby wrote: Last 8 years - 3 Grand Slams more than any other nation - RWC semi-final in 2011. Enjoy your odd victory over the SH as do Ireland and Scotland but it's about winning something tangible. You almost did it in 2011 - Good luck again this year

Arbitrary Timeframe Alert!

sorry didnt england and france get a final of the wc within that time frame

Rubyguby yes you have 3 GSs but in between you falter badly.

No consistency. Plus you can't match the SH sides.

We won the championship in 2011.

England have a greater consistency hence the higher world ranking.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Last 8 years - 3 Grand Slams more than any other nation - RWC semi-final in 2011. Enjoy your odd victory over the SH as do Ireland and Scotland but it's about winning something tangible. You almost did it in 2011 - Good luck again this year

Arbitrary Timeframe Alert!

Yes the most recent results would be arbitrary to you Cyril.

Yes England were a comendable runners up in the 2007 RWC and it was a great effort from them

Now for the last time 3 Grand Slams v ?

beshocked wrote:Rubyguby yes you have 3 GSs but in between you falter badly.

No consistency. Plus you can't match the SH sides.

We won the championship in 2011.

England have a greater consistency hence the higher world ranking.

I agree with the consistency: After the GS in 2005 we were injury ravaged in 2006 and then we had Ruddockgate and Gareth Blydi Jenkins took over - We recovered in 2008 with WG and 2009 wasn't too bad but again injuries hit us badly before we recovered in 2011. More recent injuries following another GS coupled with the child in charge have not helped. I think England's consistency is largely borne out of having a larger pool of players to choose from when the front line boys get injured. In fact I was thinking this morning what would happen to England if Cole and Farrell got injured. That's the sort of thing we have been trying to cope with whilst having a child in charge. Conversley Engalnd have one of the most astute tacticians in charge of their national team and he has gelled them into playing simple rugby; each player knows what's required and he has made them very hard to beat. March should be an absolute corker of a game; but we still have the child at the helm

Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure the only years Wales have finished above England in the 6 nations table are your 3 GSs.

The rest England have finished higher.

Wales suffer from grandslam hangover - having never finished above 4th after a grand slam in 2005 and 2008.

Read the earlier post for the explanation beshocked - it's like trying to educate fecking pork on here

jeasus 1 win and the welsh get out in full force again..

there wasnt this talk after england beat the AB's

Its true that Wales have had more domestic success than any other 6 Nations side - more Slams than the other home nations put togehter.

But that success pales into insignficance for me against the utter failure to kick on and take on the world. We should not only have won that RWC semi but gone on to give the ABs a serious run for theri money, composed sides using their brains would have while we, in the most important game in our history to date, miss umpteen points off the boot.

The more Slams we win the more expectation is placed upon us and the more we seem to crumble. That is not rught and nor is it a sign of a successful side rather a hugely talenetd one with serious issues. I believe we lack leadership on the pitch and have such shallow strength in depth that we just can't take the injury rate. I also think our style is formulaic and will not wok against SH sides who will either bully us back or have the ball skills to cream us. I want to see a change back to offload as much as i do set piece, round the corner, blitz and route 1

Get a grip ruby. We're discussing Wales and you'll note by reading my actual words that I was using France (finalists) as a yardstick. Well done on the RWC quarter, a great effort. How have things panned out since then? Lets not dwell on the past as you'll find England (who you brought up btw) have a rather more healthy RWC record where a 1/4 final ranks as a failure.
Back on topic, I'd say that 3rd for Wales would be a decent enough result considering its roughly where they tend to finish and their coming off an appalling run of losses. Italy have beaten them a fair few times
over the years and could easily do so again so should not be taken lightly. Wales will probably grit that one out (as all the 6N teams have to from time to time). Wales won't lie down against England - they haven't suffered a 50 point whipping for nearly a decade and it's v unlikely they will this year. They might even sneak another close win if they play as they did against Ireland in the 2nd half again. The taffs have a great record against Scotland recently and whatever their current woes, the red shirts are the stronger side IMO and should win this one. Wales could even end up in 2nd which I think most fans would have taken if offered after the AI's

I agree beefy and we need to become more dynamic than we have been. First of all however we need to secure that platform again which brought us success along with our defence. The defence in France was very good against a powerful french backline but nothing will change until Howley is out of sight I'm waiting for the 2013 AI's to see where we are, even if we win the next 3 which we are more than capable of

RubyGuby wrote:

beshocked wrote:Rubyguby yes you have 3 GSs but in between you falter badly.

No consistency. Plus you can't match the SH sides.

We won the championship in 2011.

England have a greater consistency hence the higher world ranking.

I agree with the consistency: After the GS in 2005 we were injury ravaged in 2006 and then we had Ruddockgate and Gareth Blydi Jenkins took over - We recovered in 2008 with WG and 2009 wasn't too bad but again injuries hit us badly before we recovered in 2011. More recent injuries following another GS coupled with the child in charge have not helped. I think England's consistency is largely borne out of having a larger pool of players to choose from when the front line boys get injured. In fact I was thinking this morning what would happen to England if Cole and Farrell got injured. That's the sort of thing we have been trying to cope with whilst having a child in charge. Conversley Engalnd have one of the most astute tacticians in charge of their national team and he has gelled them into playing simple rugby; each player knows what's required and he has made them very hard to beat. March should be an absolute corker of a game; but we still have the child at the helm

Poor excuses. This is basically a scratch England side that has been put together in the last season and a half. They have a lot less caps than their rivals yet it hasn't mattered at all.

Every side has injuries.England have lost the likes of frontline players such as Morgan,Tuilagi,Corbisiero and squad players such as Clark,Johnson and Burns too but you don't see England fans harping on about it.

If Farrell is injured Flood can come in. If Cole is injured Wilson comes in.

These experienced Welsh players should be doing better even with Howley the howler in charge.

damngoodOvalball wrote:Get a grip ruby. We're discussing Wales and you'll note by reading my actual words that I was using France (finalists) as a yardstick. Well done on the RWC quarter, a great effort. How have things panned out since then? Lets not dwell on the past as you'll find England (who you brought up btw) have a rather more healthy RWC record where a 1/4 final ranks as a failure.
Back on topic, I'd say that 3rd for Wales would be a decent enough result considering its roughly where they tend to finish and their coming off an appalling run of losses. Italy have beaten them a fair few times
over the years and could easily do so again so should not be taken lightly. Wales will probably grit that one out (as all the 6N teams have to from time to time). Wales won't lie down against England - they haven't suffered a 50 point whipping for nearly a decade and it's v unlikely they will this year. They might even sneak another close win if they play as they did against Ireland in the 2nd half again. The taffs have a great record against Scotland recently and whatever their current woes, the red shirts are the stronger side IMO and should win this one. Wales could even end up in 2nd which I think most fans would have taken if offered after the AI's

DGO - I'm afraid you illustrate your ignorance here, but I understand that - enjoy the debates - By the way it was a semi-final in 2011 - How have things panned out since then another GS followed by a spate of injuries and no coach - Enjoy the debates, you seem to be a master of them

I think with Wales it's your mentality.

When Wales are confident they a dangerous side and play with a freedom that makes them a difficult side to beat but when the heads drop the whole team shuts down.

Wales have shown they can match the SH sides mostly but in the tight games can't quite get over the line. I think it's the mental side of it.

Wales don't have this mental block when going for the GS and with NH opposition.

Wales got to a WC semi without beating a SH side. This is because Wales can perform vs NH opposition.

The OP's question, of whether it would be an achievement to finish third this year for Wales, gets a different answer depending on when it is/was asked.

If you had asked it in the wake of last year's GS, obviously not. If you had done so during the autumn, when Wales were in mid-bad trot and playing like a side bereft of confidence, quite possibly. If any one of the Welsh supporters had been asked that question at half-time of the Ireland game, when the team was apparently a shambles, you'd have bitten off someone's hand for third spot.

Now, following that excellent win in Paris (which reminded me of ugly but splendid England wins in Paris in 94, 2000 and 2008), there seems to be something in the air that third, after all, would be no sort of achievement whatever.

Think things are rarely as gloomy as they seem, nor perhaps quite as rosy as they may appear sometimes. I feel that last year's GS may have covered a few deficiencies that, when allied to the lack of confidence, have been slightly exposed over the past twelve months - the similarity in the back line, the lack of balance in the back row, the form of Gethin etc. At the same time, Wales were so close to winning at least two of those Tests in the Australian winter, and the effect that had on the psyche can't be underestimated. Losing breeds losing, however good a side may be, which is why the win in Paris was so important.

I don't know now if third place would constitute an achievement, but it would certainly be no disgrace, and it's a damn sight better than it might have been. Some of you pessimists saw a whitewash on the horizon after Game 1. There's a lesson here - always steer the middle course between rapture and despair! It's what Lancaster has done so well for England and it's why there appears to be a new realism about that team.

Comparing England to Wales 6 Nations - Wales massively more successful. Suggesting that because england usually finish higher they are better at it is frankly Becontree (2 stops past Barking)

World Cup - England massively more susccessful with the exception of an abysssmal display on and off in 2011. And it was a semi not a quarter for Wales.

Consistency - England have that one as Wales simply cannot kick on yet. They need a Slam followed by a 3/4 Autumn tour to suggest that monkey is off their back

Strenght in depth - an entirely disingenuous comparison since England have so many more players available to them

Composure - England impress the hell out of me on this one, Wales?...what composure?

captain carrantuohil wrote:The OP's question, of whether it would be an achievement to finish third this year for Wales, gets a different answer depending on when it is/was asked.

If you had asked it in the wake of last year's GS, obviously not. If you had done so during the autumn, when Wales were in mid-bad trot and playing like a side bereft of confidence, quite possibly. If any one of the Welsh supporters had been asked that question at half-time of the Ireland game, when the team was apparently a shambles, you'd have bitten off someone's hand for third spot.

Now, following that excellent win in Paris (which reminded me of ugly but splendid England wins in Paris in 94, 2000 and 2008), there seems to be something in the air that third, after all, would be no sort of achievement whatever.

Think things are rarely as gloomy as they seem, nor perhaps quite as rosy as they may appear sometimes. I feel that last year's GS may have covered a few deficiencies that, when allied to the lack of confidence, have been slightly exposed over the past twelve months - the similarity in the back line, the lack of balance in the back row, the form of Gethin etc. At the same time, Wales were so close to winning at least two of those Tests in the Australian winter, and the effect that had on the psyche can't be underestimated. Losing breeds losing, however good a side may be, which is why the win in Paris was so important.

I don't know now if third place would constitute an achievement, but it would certainly be no disgrace, and it's a damn sight better than it might have been. Some of you pessimists saw a whitewash on the horizon after Game 1. There's a lesson here - always steer the middle course between rapture and despair! It's what Lancaster has done so well for England and it's why there appears to be a new realism about that team.

+1

More interesting is would England. They will probably end up with 3 wins as will France and Ireland. After all the hype would 3rd be a step forward for the English on the way the winning the WC in 2015

I'm aware the quarter was 2011. By using RWC performance as a yardstick and stretching your timeframe to include all your recent GS, you shot yourself in the foot re England's 2007 final.
Well done beating a woeful France. You can only play the team thats in front of you. It just seems as if you think the RWC finished (the best team coming 4th), then Wales got a GS, then..... nothing until last weekend!

You can drop in pretentious little comments about my debating ability and ignorance but you're ignoring a run of 8 losses including some to pretty average teams.

Doubtful, dragon breath. After all, a poor England side won the 2011 Championship, losing one match (comprehensively, admittedly). A better England side came second last year, losing one match narrowly. This year, to my eye at least, they seem to have improved slightly again from 2012, and have currently not lost, of course. Let's imagine that you're wrong and they end up with 4 wins again, which, with points difference as they are, would probably be enough for another championship. I would call that evidence of incremental progress once again.

Of course, England may get pumped by both France and Wales, but I slightly doubt it at the moment. Providing they play well in both, they'll have taken a step forward this year, regardless of final placing.

100%beefy how is it silly to suggest that a team that generally wins more matches and finishes higher in the table is worse?

Abysmal for England is a quarter final. This is because England have more consistency in the RWC.

England are building toughness and continuity. Belief is important. This new Lancaster side has only win vs the SH but as it's the big one they know they can beat the best.

As Captain Carrantouhil says it depends on your expectations how Wales should be doing. Looking at Wales world ranking 3rd in the 6 nations is about right.

dragonbreath wrote:More interesting is would England. They will probably end up with 3 wins as will France and Ireland. After all the hype would 3rd be a step forward for the English on the way the winning the WC in 2015

I doubt England will lose to Italy, 4 wins guarantees them second. It wouldnt be considered an achievement, they do that most years. Winning yes, by everyone except the Welsh who will polish up their 3 grandslam trophies whilst muttering into their pints of bitter about the unfairness of going out of the 2003 world cup despite winning 3-1.

I for one am not ignoring the run of losses, i think it was actually 9 but lost count. aND HAD Wales gone down in Paris Holwey's positiion would , you would have thought, become untenable but now he makes Rob Andrew look more like tupperware than teflon!

Thsi is the problem with Wales, they are the ultimate confidence side and that coonfidence manifests in roller coaster performances which rather like our catch up style, actually works to undermine our consistency. By comparison England have cornered the market in consistency and composure right now. The top 2 inches.

If i had any to spare i woudl offer some inches to the Welsh, because the inches we need are everywhere

beshocked wrote:100%beefy how is it silly to suggest that a team that generally wins more matches and finishes higher in the table is worse?

Abysmal for England is a quarter final. This is because England have more consistency in the RWC.

England are building toughness and continuity. Belief is important. This new Lancaster side has only win vs the SH but as it's the big one they know they can beat the best.

As Captain Carrantouhil says it depends on your expectations how Wales should be doing. Looking at Wales world ranking 3rd in the 6 nations is about right.

It is and you know it is. In relation to the 6 Nations, England are more consistent an dless successful, the stats don't lie on that one. Wales are very successful and less consistent. Take each championship individually and yes, where England finsih higher they are more successful QED but as a measure of performance in the 6 Nations that is not a relaible indicator is it, if you want to discuss individual years then you can use that argument but for the championship in general you can't.

RWC I agree and it was

England are building a powerhouse no doubt about it, Wales have different challenges. Unitl Lancaster the English team did no tpick itself and now it almost does, a ffew spots here and there in contention but you have 2 class players for each position...rather like Henry in 07. Wales struggle when one of theirs goes down, look at Jones in RWC semi...had we lost only Sam we could still have done it, Jones too and we were croque monsieur.

Compared to world ranking yes 3rd is fine but Wales compare their 6 Nations performance to their record of 3 slams in 7 years, so nothing less than a slamis success and 2nd is acceptable. Somehwo though, as the Capt siad, Wlaes do well v NH sides and using World rankings o determine success in 6 Nations doesn't sit well for obvious reasons

Suppose what you define as success. As a Welshman you think the GS is all that matters. As an Englishman I care more about winning matches and consistency. We have more overall championships and overall wins than Wales.

England came 2nd last year in the 6 nations with 4 wins and 1 narrow loss with a very inexperienced side. That's good in my opinion. We didn't get the GS but England are improving.

I think Wales would be pleased to show some consistency. Currently you haven't. A win vs France doesn't paper over the erratic performance vs Ireland, the Summer and Ais.

Wales are actually as erratic as France if not more so.

beshocked wrote:Suppose what you define as success. As a Welshman you think the GS is all that matters. As an Englishman I care more about winning matches and consistency. We have more overall championships and overall wins than Wales.

England came 2nd last year in the 6 nations with 4 wins and 1 narrow loss with a very inexperienced side. That's good in my opinion. We didn't get the GS but England are improving.

I think Wales would be pleased to show some consistency. Currently you haven't. A win vs France doesn't paper over the erratic performance vs Ireland, the Summer and Ais.

Wales are actually as erratic as France if not more so.

regards your first point if you believe that hand on heart I am surpised and that sounds great but you haven't experienced the glory the way Wales have and had you done so Slam does become all that matters...i think we have identified that you are better at World Cups and we are better at Slams. I think that makes England a 'better' side per se whatever the fook that means but I still think success is a fairly good meausre of bestness so I stand by my assertion we are the better side in 6 Nations comp and you are in RWC. Can you tell me stats on overall championships and wins v Wales, I am intrigued as i think it will be very close

After RWC England did VERY well to come 2nd last year.

Welsh consistency, yes please. I am desperate for it.

Wales are as erratic as France but it is explicable with us, with France you just have no idea!

Perhaps when yuo hav won a RWC and nearly won twice then the 6 Nations just loses it's significance so things like consistency become more important....but personally I think 6 Nations is up there in its importance accepting the standard and challenge are not so great

As I said before we have a different interpretation of success.

I already posted a link about the 6 nations.

Of course England would love to win the GS but it's not do or die. We haven't won the GS since 2003 but if we keep winning the majority of matches eventually the GS will be ours because I am sure at some point we could string 5 wins in a row.

It's about seeing progress. This year not winning the GS would be seen as a failure but a championship win would be acceptable.


3-4 wins for Wales is realistic. The solitary win would be a disaster. Only 2 wins is a failure,3 is acceptable, 4 is good IMO.

You have to accept that currently Wales are probably the 4th best NH side so expectations have to be adjusted.

4 wins would be very good for wales

Not biasedly bigging england up here..

But england are consitant and have been for a year under sl's reign.. even our losses have been competitive..

If wales can beat england they have deffo showed they still have class- because one thing england wont give them is an easy game!!

3rd would mean Wales finish above one of France,Ireland or England which I would say is an achievement. Before the 6 nations started you would say Wales were behind those 3 sides.

Scotland and Italy with a win each respectively have shown themselves competitive too so a win against both is not guaranteed. Italy especially have shown they are competitive on their own patch.

mystiroakey wrote: 4 wins would be very good for wales

Not biasedly bigging england up here..

But england are consitant and have been for a year under sl's reign.. even our losses have been competitive..

If wales can beat england they have deffo showed they still have class- because one thing england wont give them is an easy game!!

competitive losses?!....are you Rob Howley?

beshocked wrote:3rd would mean Wales finish above one of France,Ireland or England which I would say is an achievement. Before the 6 nations started you would say Wales were behind those 3 sides.

Scotland and Italy with a win each respectively have shown themselves competitive too so a win against both is not guaranteed. Italy especially have shown they are competitive on their own patch.

Agreed, and like the Capt said depending on when you ask the question....

Now Wales beat France away expectation is ramped straight back up and with the fixtures remaining 'success' will only be beating England in Cardiff and competing for the top spot on 4/5

100%beefy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote: 4 wins would be very good for wales

Not biasedly bigging england up here..

But england are consitant and have been for a year under sl's reign.. even our losses have been competitive..

If wales can beat england they have deffo showed they still have class- because one thing england wont give them is an easy game!!

competitive losses?!....are you Rob Howley?

jeas your baffling me again..

england turn up win or lose.. wales and france cant match that.. Its not rocket science.. If you dont agree explain.

What Mysti is trying to say I believe is that the only sides England have lost to with SL in charge have been either top 3 sides like SA or Aus and a grandslam winning Wales.

Wales in contrast have been up and down more times than a yoyo.

Must be tough being a Welsh fan with emotions and expectations changing all the time.

beshocked wrote:What Mysti is trying to say I believe is that the only sides England have lost to with SL in charge have been either top 3 sides like SA or Aus and a grandslam winning Wales.

Wales in contrast have been up and down more times than a yoyo.

Must be tough being a Welsh fan with emotions and expectations changing all the time.

Sure have, and in the summer and Autumn we managed to plumb new depths but I wouldn't have missed the ride, 3 Slams in 7 years. The 6 Nations is about one thing, the Grand Slam which Wales have dominated. Fact is we are nowhere near being in the clear, for me the only measure of success left is 3 more wins. I can't settle for less anymore because as we have established, consistency is something we just cannot achieve...it comes from leadership, thinking, composure and character and although I did not rate the 2nd half v Ireland as showing that - we play 2nd half catch up, that's our thing - I did thing beating France away was a huge step

It must be frsutrating for England too, always the bridesmaid but never the bride, unable to hammer it home since 2003.

I think Lancaster has been a revelation for England and has clearly inspired the team to achieve great things, now they must realize that potential and as you say not winning GS will be a failure, not just in perception but in reality.

Wales have done well Horesmeat..

No one is denying that!

the consitancy stinks mind.

Engalnd fans are not frustrated atm- its all good..

100%beefy this is the first time in a while though that you would say England should be winning the GS.

England had the chance in 2011 but I think most realistic fans knew we weren't going to beat Ireland in Ireland. This England side on the other hand has done that. It's also a stronger side than previous England ones in recent years.

England need to keep it one game at a time though.

Wales I think will get 3 wins and lose to England at the Millennium in a tight match.

One of England's biggest strengths at the moment is a decent half back combo of Youngs and Farrell. Compare that to Wales' options. This could well be the difference if England are still going for the GS when they rock up to the milliennum stadium.

Historically speaking 3rd place after winning a Grand Slam would be an achievement for Wales. Usually they drop further than that. I thought Ireland was the team who didn't like the favourites tag.

As for NZ, it punches above its weight in more sports than just rugby. Rugby is our national sport but more people play football. What matters is coaching, and developing a broad grassroots level to maximise the number of talented players from which to choose. In proportional terms, the money and resources that NZ has at its disposal to do that is far less than bigger wealthier countries. Hence the begging and stealing and AIG sponsorship oakey.

By the way 100% beefy. Are you from Romania?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:By the way 100% beefy. Are you from Romania?

No 'cos then he'd be 50%horsey

Roses are red
Apples are fruity
check that lasagne
it might be black beauty.

kiakahaaotearoa true about Wales.

I would say you punch above your weight in cricket too. Plus you are decent at rugby league too.

I wouldn't say the same of football though! I didn't even know you had a football side!

roses are red
beefy is new
he seems to know me
was he once horse
or maybe he was hersh

Lets not forget that Wales collectively bust a nut over finishing 4th in the world cup, finishing 3rd in something would make surely make them the greatest ever?

beshocked wrote:100%beefy this is the first time in a while though that you would say England should be winning the GS.

England had the chance in 2011 but I think most realistic fans knew we weren't going to beat Ireland in Ireland. This England side on the other hand has done that. It's also a stronger side than previous England ones in recent years.

England need to keep it one game at a time though.

Wales I think will get 3 wins and lose to England at the Millennium in a tight match.

One of England's biggest strengths at the moment is a decent half back combo of Youngs and Farrell. Compare that to Wales' options. This could well be the difference if England are still going for the GS when they rock up to the milliennum stadium.

mmm not sure I agree, when a side consistently comes in he the top 3 you would have expected at least 1 Slam in 10 years.

And by definition it is 1 game at a time...but England have consistency and clearly that stands them in good stead to build the necessary momentum, fact is I think Lancaster is building momentum for RWC 2015 and a Slam now will be a great step but don't peak too soon!

True Wales by comparison are struggling at 9 and 10. I rate Youngs and love Care, I think Farrell is superb and my Lions 10. But Philipps can change games from 9 and as long as he isn't sucked onto an arm wrestle. Biggar, well he is competetn and building but yes no comaprison with Farrell right now, better than Priest though!

Assuming you beat France and if France beat Ireland it should mean that Wales can win assuming wins over Scotland and Italy of course which are by no means guaranteed....it will be E P I C but I don't think Wales will lose at home if they are playing for such high stakes...not sure if you have been in the Millenium for England Wales but it is a fearsome place to play.

nobbled wrote:Roses are red
Apples are fruity
check that lasagne
it might be black beauty.

mystiroakey wrote:roses are red
beefy is new
he seems to know me
was he once horse
or maybe he was hersh

The thing about an English quintain is it really should rhyme!