Wales recent record and what it says

Some may be surprised to hear that Wales have won just 5 of their last 16 games. What has caused this slump or is this the true level of this welsh team. I must admit that I get surprised at some of the praise banded about when the actual results don't back this up. If England had won just 5 of 16 games with one of those wins against a third tier team in Japan I'm sure there would be uproar. So do people agree with my view that Wales are overrated? If not how would you argue against the stat of played 16 won 5?

I would check the world rankings if I were you;that should tell you where Wales are currently.Easy,really.

7th then, just behind Ireland and ahead of Samoa

They are the European champions. The best side in Europe. Its been proven over the last 2 years with back to back wins.
There is a difference between championship performance and non-championship performance.

But

all the title means is that they are the best in Europe, no more. As we've seen, when it comes to the world they have a lot of work to do.

fa0019 wrote:They are the European champions. The best side in Europe. Its been proven over the last 2 years with back to back wins.
There is a difference between championship performance and non-championship performance.

But

all the title means is that they are the best in Europe, no more. As we've seen, when it comes to the world they have a lot of work to do.

YES they are European Champions. They have won the 6ns for the LAST 2 YEARS. 

BUT THEY DO STRUGGLE WHEN IT COMES TO PLAYING SH TEAMS. WHY? WHY, do they not play the same intensity against SH TEAMS has they do NH teams?

Is it just down to selection of the team on the day? Or it it down to the tactics, and the coaches deciding how the team will/should play?

Wales will beat the SH teams when they get quicker ball to their dangerous backline.

Phillips in my view is too pedantic and crisp accurate and clean clearance is what is required.

Every time I said this in the past two or so years I have been shot down.

The fact is why can Scotland, Ireland and England beat Australia and South Africa when Wales are clearly the Six Nations Champions?

Because they adapt to quicker ball.

Phillips doesn't.

The way to break our defences is to get momentum and then get wide quickly, slow ball allows our defences to organise.

You will find that we at times stand of the ruck to organise defences and do not compete at the rucks, other times we will compete at the rucks and have less defensive players spread out.

Phillips does not vary the pace of his delivery to Priestland and that costs Wales.

Wlaes also needs one more bully in the back row, they may be strong in defence, but rarely gains go forward ball.

Just my opinion.

Biltong wrote:Wales will beat the SH teams when they get quicker ball to their dangerous backline.

Phillips in my view is too pedantic and crisp accurate and clean clearance is what is required.

Every time I said this in the past two or so years I have been shot down.

The fact is why can Scotland, Ireland and England beat Australia and South Africa when Wales are clearly the Six Nations Champions?

Because they adapt to quicker ball.

Phillips doesn't.

The way to break our defences is to get momentum and then get wide quickly, slow ball allows our defences to organise.

You will find that we at times stand of the ruck to organise defences and do not compete at the rucks, other times we will compete at the rucks and have less defensive players spread out.

Phillips does not vary the pace of his delivery to Priestland and that costs Wales.

Wlaes also needs one more bully in the back row, they may be strong in defence, but rarely gains go forward ball.

Just my opinion.

I don't agree that Phillips is pedantic. He's the least finicky player in the squad. Not concerned with minor rules and regulations at all.

He appears to be a 'slow' passer, but given the way Wales play, those extra few tenths of a second won't make any difference when all we do is pop passes up in midfield or hoof it down the pitch. 'Quick ball' is irrelevant to us.

The SA game didn't throw up any surprises and didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. Given the circumstances and the players we had missing/lost during the game, we performed well.

We are good in the 6N as we can compete (first half against Ireland aside) physically with all the other teams. We have to be at our best to scrap it out with France or England, as they are 'naturally' more powerful, individually and as a unit. This is why they (France and England) can compete with SA and NZ, whereas these two are a step too far for Wales, in terms of power.

Australia v Wales produces, almost always, a good game, as they are more evenly matched. The advantage Australia has is strength in depth - a luxury Wales will probably never enjoy, given its player base.

Wales tend to get better the longer the squad is together. Maybe it's partly because the regions play at such a poor level, it takes Wales longer to raise their game. Like in the 6 Nations they were destroyed by Ireland in the first half of the first game. Then made a mini comeback but lost. Then strung 4 wins together. They also got better the longer the RWC went on.

I remember once Gatland picked something like 14 Ospreys to play for Wales. They won the 6 Nations. But Ospreys were off the pace in the HC. And this was before the player exodus to France. What's the deal with that? Why can't the regions raise their game like Wales eventually can.

Halfpenny is the only Welsh player I can think of who's consistently good no matter if he's playing for Wales or Cardiff. Most of the others can be bleedin awful for their regions. No wonder it takes them time to raise the tempo and intensity when they're just not raising their game to anywhere near that level for the months leading up to the internationals.

PS

There's also the fact that the SH teams are generally better than the NH teams. England have done well against them recently. Ireland had good years against SH opposition in 2006 and 2009. But no European team can do this year in year out. The big three from down south are just too consistently good. Maybe Australia's dip will be more permanent. We'll see if any other European teams can turn them over.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Wales tend to get better the longer the squad is together. Maybe it's partly because the regions play at such a poor level, it takes Wales longer to raise their game. Like in the 6 Nations they were destroyed by Ireland in the first half of the first game. Then made a mini comeback but lost. Then strung 4 wins together. They also got better the longer the RWC went on.

I remember once Gatland picked something like 14 Ospreys to play for Wales. They won the 6 Nations. But Ospreys were off the pace in the HC. And this was before the player exodus to France. What's the deal with that? Why can't the regions raise their game like Wales eventually can.

Halfpenny is the only Welsh player I can think of who's consistently good no matter if he's playing for Wales or Cardiff. Most of the others can be bleedin awful for their regions. No wonder it takes them time to raise the tempo and intensity when they're just not raising their game to anywhere near that level for the months leading up to the internationals.

PS

There's also the fact that the SH teams are generally better than the NH teams. England have done well against them recently. Ireland had good years against SH opposition in 2006 and 2009. But no European team can do this year in year out. The big three from down south are just too consistently good. Maybe Australia's dip will be more permanent. We'll see if any other European teams can turn them over.

Can't say I disagree with any of that.

It has long been the case that players manage to raise their game for Wales to levels we never see them hit at their respective regions. There are a few exceptions (Halfpenny, Cuthbert, Faletau) but for the most part, when playing for the regions the majority fall far short of what we know they're capable of from watching Wales play. This I simply can't explain. I've been speculating various possible explanations for a few years but despite the criticism levelled at the regions over the years nothing seems to change. None of the regions would appear noticeably better now than 5 years ago, some have in fact declined alarmingly.

In an increasingly competitive club environment the regions are simply failing to up the standards sufficiently. All I can really say is that they generally seem disjointed and poorly managed as teams compared to most. You don't see any of the regions play with the vigour or consistency to win big at this level and in ways I would agree this hampers the national team. The regional team ethos just seems remarkably frail when compared to that of the national team.

The regional teams have little or no relevance to test rugby. The gulf in standard is now so massive that being decent at regional level is no indicator of potential at international rugby.

The regions filled an interim gap and did as good a job as anyone could expect from a plan hastily drawn up on the back of a ciggie packet a decade or so ago, but (rather selfishly) the world game moved on without us.

There is no magic solution. We have to continue to pick from a small pool of (hopefully fit) test standard players and hope for the best. It is the Welsh way.

Why didn't the author show up around the last time Wales played England? Got to be honest I'm surprised such an anti-welsh poster gets away with posting this rubbish every time Wales lose a game, posting history proves it.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Wales tend to get better the longer the squad is together. Maybe it's partly because the regions play at such a poor level, it takes Wales longer to raise their game. Like in the 6 Nations they were destroyed by Ireland in the first half of the first game. Then made a mini comeback but lost. Then strung 4 wins together. They also got better the longer the RWC went on.

I remember once Gatland picked something like 14 Ospreys to play for Wales. They won the 6 Nations. But Ospreys were off the pace in the HC. And this was before the player exodus to France. What's the deal with that? Why can't the regions raise their game like Wales eventually can.

Halfpenny is the only Welsh player I can think of who's consistently good no matter if he's playing for Wales or Cardiff. Most of the others can be bleedin awful for their regions. No wonder it takes them time to raise the tempo and intensity when they're just not raising their game to anywhere near that level for the months leading up to the internationals.

PS

There's also the fact that the SH teams are generally better than the NH teams. England have done well against them recently. Ireland had good years against SH opposition in 2006 and 2009. But no European team can do this year in year out. The big three from down south are just too consistently good. Maybe Australia's dip will be more permanent. We'll see if any other European teams can turn them over.

Good point, I agree. But please see the thread on this where Gatland makes the same point as you, and everyone on here is slating it as making excuses!!!

fa0019 wrote:They are the European champions. The best side in Europe. Its been proven over the last 2 years with back to back wins.
There is a difference between championship performance and non-championship performance.

But

all the title means is that they are the best in Europe, no more. As we've seen, when it comes to the world they have a lot of work to do.

I completely agree with this. But Wales are no different to anyone else outside the 3N really. Who has really challenged the top 3 rankings in recent memory? England around 2002/3? No one has got there lately. Far from it. Others have been 'kings of Europe' recently (Ireland, England. France) but they haven't challenged the tri nations. Some wins over them yes, but not consistently breaking into that top 3 ranking. So why pick on Wales specifically for not doing it??? Seems daft!

Ireland, Scotland, Italy, France were awful. Left Wales or England. And England took Wales for granted after a string of losses, mentally didn't turn up, got trounced. There's you 6N champions.

Griff wrote:

fa0019 wrote:They are the European champions. The best side in Europe. Its been proven over the last 2 years with back to back wins.
There is a difference between championship performance and non-championship performance.

But

all the title means is that they are the best in Europe, no more. As we've seen, when it comes to the world they have a lot of work to do.

I completely agree with this. But Wales are no different to anyone else outside the 3N really. Who has really challenged the top 3 rankings in recent memory? England around 2002/3? No one has got there lately. Far from it. Others have been 'kings of Europe' recently (Ireland, England. France) but they haven't challenged the tri nations. Some wins over them yes, but not consistently breaking into that top 3 ranking. So why pick on Wales specifically for not doing it??? Seems daft!

As Wales are back to back 6N champions it increases the weight of expectation on the team. The way Wales play against NH seems to not be reflected when playing against SH opposition. I think the inconsistency baffles us supporters.

You have to say England have challenged the 3N recently surely?

Not consistently though, hence why they've not got into and stayed in the top 3 rankings in the world. I don't want to overplay the rankings, but they are accurate in that if you beat the top teams consistently then you stay there in that top bracket.

Why does being 6N champions mean anything in relation to the top 3? That baffles me just as much. Beat the teams ranked 4 to circa 12 in the world and you can suddenly topple the top 3?! Not logical.

The Saint wrote:Why didn't the author show up around the last time Wales played England? Got to be honest I'm surprised such an anti-welsh poster gets away with posting this rubbish every time Wales lose a game, posting history proves it.

I do find it a bit strange that he had one article locked, which was clearly along the same lines. I don't mind people offering an opinion, but this does come across as a bit of a hit and run Wum.

Biltong wrote:Wales will beat the SH teams when they get quicker ball to their dangerous backline.

Phillips in my view is too pedantic and crisp accurate and clean clearance is what is required.

Every time I said this in the past two or so years I have been shot down.

The fact is why can Scotland, Ireland and England beat Australia and South Africa when Wales are clearly the Six Nations Champions?

Because they adapt to quicker ball.

Phillips doesn't.

The way to break our defences is to get momentum and then get wide quickly, slow ball allows our defences to organise.

You will find that we at times stand of the ruck to organise defences and do not compete at the rucks, other times we will compete at the rucks and have less defensive players spread out.

Phillips does not vary the pace of his delivery to Priestland and that costs Wales.

Wlaes also needs one more bully in the back row, they may be strong in defence, but rarely gains go forward ball.

Just my opinion.

I agree. this is how I see it. I Wales had Laidlaw they would have won more. You need a proper SH. yes Wales do play a structured game when some of the time quick ball is not needed - however when a break appears Phillips is to slow to whip the ball to the right man and also they game plan is wrong You don't outmuscle the Boks. Scotland have a better chance of winning simply because of laidlaw and the willingness to use the pacy backs we have. he will put guys in space with his speed. of delivery.

Griff wrote:Not consistently though, hence why they've not got into and stayed in the top 3 rankings in the world. I don't want to overplay the rankings, but they are accurate in that if you beat the top teams consistently then you stay there in that top bracket.

Why does being 6N champions mean anything in relation to the top 3? That baffles me just as much. Beat the teams ranked 4 to circa 12 in the world and you can suddenly topple the top 3?! Not logical.

England are ranked no.3 though...

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Not consistently though, hence why they've not got into and stayed in the top 3 rankings in the world. I don't want to overplay the rankings, but they are accurate in that if you beat the top teams consistently then you stay there in that top bracket.

Why does being 6N champions mean anything in relation to the top 3? That baffles me just as much. Beat the teams ranked 4 to circa 12 in the world and you can suddenly topple the top 3?! Not logical.

England are ranked no.3 though...

Because they beat the World Number ones and until very recently the world number 3s in the space of a year

For all the downfalls of Welsh rugby, Mike Phillips being slow, no strength in depth, no bruising ball carrier in the back row etc there was one incident that highlighted the casm between NH and SH rugby...

Habana finds himself on the wing facing North, see's Hibbard and another forward inside North, gets inside to get his hands on the ball as early as possible, strips Hibbard and avoids North coming inside before finding support.

2nd half, very similar place on the pitch, near the 22 ball gets shipped left from the touchline, Hook finds himself with a prop and hooker in front of him, he didn't see them there, he just received ball and found himself there, he crabs 10 metres forward and sideways to deliver a pass 3 metres before contact that allows the prop to cover 3 backs outside him.

The difference between SH and NH rugby is innate ability, and instinct for recognising and reacting to whats possible, and having the potential to execute what you have seen, the difference is in mini rugby, everything else is done near exactly the same worldwide!

Bullsbok wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Not consistently though, hence why they've not got into and stayed in the top 3 rankings in the world. I don't want to overplay the rankings, but they are accurate in that if you beat the top teams consistently then you stay there in that top bracket.

Why does being 6N champions mean anything in relation to the top 3? That baffles me just as much. Beat the teams ranked 4 to circa 12 in the world and you can suddenly topple the top 3?! Not logical.

England are ranked no.3 though...

Because they beat the World Number ones and until very recently the world number 3s in the space of a year

Yep, they've beaten 3 out of the 4 RC sides in a row and won 9/10. You can't argue that they don't deserve the current ranking.

butterfingers wrote:For all the downfalls of Welsh rugby, Mike Phillips being slow, no strength in depth, no bruising ball carrier in the back row etc there was one incident that highlighted the casm between NH and SH rugby...

Habana finds himself on the wing facing North, see's Hibbard and another forward inside North, gets inside to get his hands on the ball as early as possible, strips Hibbard and avoids North coming inside before finding support.

2nd half, very similar place on the pitch, near the 22 ball gets shipped left from the touchline, Hook finds himself with a prop and hooker in front of him, he didn't see them there, he just received ball and found himself there, he crabs 10 metres forward and sideways to deliver a pass 3 metres before contact that allows the prop to cover 3 backs outside him.

The difference between SH and NH rugby is innate ability, and instinct for recognising and reacting to whats possible, and having the potential to execute what you have seen, the difference is in mini rugby, everything else is done near exactly the same worldwide!

Some NH players have that. However its not recognised as a strength for Gatland. He does not want players to take risks. Wales are a good team. Well organised and make few mistakes. They are good enough to beat anyone in the NH but to go on to the next stage to beat the top teams regularly players like 1/2p need to be given license to take risks. I cry a little inside everytime he takes a poor kick well, has space to run and a counter attack available and he kicks it away. He is obviously doing this under instruction. Habana gave North a bit of a lesson - North will be a better player for it. But again he needs to get his hands on the ball with licence to attack.Give the guy a couple of decent passes per game. allow him to come inside looking for the ball.

As regards the rankings. Its clear NZ are well ahead with SA chasing them hard. Aus have fallen back into the clutches of the second rank which include England Wales Ireland and France all of whom are very similar level and all can beat the other regularly. Scotland, Italy, Samoa / argentina fighting to keep up / join them

I have no idea why some are having a dig at me, facts are facts Wales have only won 5 of the last 16 games. It's more than valid to raise this in this context. Wales are a decent team for sure but lack the consistency required to be one of the best teams. Yes they won the 6 nations albeit on points difference but were terrible beforehand loosing at home to the argies and Samoa! I don't think next week will be the walk in the park some think. For me Wales are just as likely to loose any game against the top 10 tems in the world as win it. They can produce sublime one off performances ( England in 6 nations) but are also capable of loosing at home against Samoa.

My prediction is that Wales will only win 1 of their 4 autumn games against Tonga. If they had beaten sa they would probably have won them all. That's the fine line this welsh team treads

Maybe if Wales didn't have to play on that anti-scrum pitch they would have won a lot more. You play at home to get an advantage, not to take it away.

Another possibility is that Gatland doesn't chance his arm enough with his tactics against the SH teams. The 13 man line out was inspired but where have been the counter attacks from Halfpenny that we saw in the 3rd Lions test or the George North runs? Too much kicking and not enough decisive moments on attack. You can contain the lower ranked teams but the top teams will put points on you and so you need to score at crucial times. The last quarter has seen a dearth of points for Wales against the 3N. Better to lose by an intercept looking for a break or at least throwing everything you've got rather than looking back and wondering if only.

We're as fit as any team out there and as physical as most; but fitness and physicality will only get you so far against the very best. We need a cutting edge, and I'm afraid that Howley still isn't producing the goods. He's been there long enough now and have we really seen any development in terms of backline play?

Also, we don't help our cause by talking ourselves up all the time. When we say we're as good as the Big Three, that we can beat them, we're lying. We haven't beaten any of them since 2008.

Wales are back to back 6Ns champions but the format of the competition means that the best side doesn't necessarily win it. You need to look at wider competitions. Wales have struggled in the last year but for a lot of that they were without their coach.

Superior fitness, as Lucky says, combined with Gatlandball and the playing personnel to deliver it, seem to me the reason why Wales do well against their NH counterparts, but I do wonder whether there is a mental fragility when playing SH teams that stops them achieving the same heights

I think Kia and TJ have it spot on: we don't chance our arm enough. It's frustrating enough even when we win - it's not often we put a big score on anyone, and that's because we never really go for it. It's only when the chips are down, as in the second half against Ireland, that we actually play some rugby. The rest of the time it's territory, containment and kick your goals. Against world-class sides, the best that'll get you is a narrow win, and more likely a narrow defeat. But a narrow defeat might as well be a hammering, you've still lost.

No risk, no reward.

Claiming a team has superior fitness when it has been together for a week is a myth.

Gatland has no control over the fitness and management of his players unless they join up for a tournament such as the world cup where he has weeks or months to condition them.

Biltong wrote:Claiming a team has superior fitness when it has been together for a week is a myth.

Gatland has no control over the fitness and management of his players unless they join up for a tournament such as the world cup where he has weeks or months to condition them.

Well, that is certainly true, biltong

I see your point, Biltong, but if our fitness wasn't up to scratch, you'd have been out of sight last Saturday. When Gatland came in, the priority was to get us as fit as the southern hemisphere sides. He's achieved that largely, but it still hasn't been added to.

The strategy seems to be to stay in the game as long as possible and hope to nick it at the end. Would it be such a disaster to try and win the game before the final few minutes?

Gatland does have some control, Biltong - the Wales coaches set the conditioning programmes for the Welsh players. How far they follow it when not in camp is another question (I suspect the France-based players less so than the regional players), but Gatland has said repeatedly that he believes the Welsh players are better prepared than any other NH side.

I think that's one of Wales's problems. The preparation goes so far that the players are quite fragile. When Wales have their first XV on the pitch, they are capable of challenging anyone, but how often are all XV fit for a whole tournament?

The second problem, I think, is Gatland's power game. It works well against NH teams when Wales have enough of the first XV on the pitch, because very few of the NH teams can live with it over 80 minutes. But the SH teams know how to absorb the pressure and take their chances (Aus, NZ) or to up their own physicality in response (SA).

Gatland claimed (at a dinner some friends attended) that he knew he'd won the Lins series at the end of the 2nd test, when he could see that the Australian players had nothing left to give whle the Lions were still fresh. That may be the case - but it's rare that you get to play 3 games against a single opponent and for two games they'd absorbed the pressure. It's easy to forget that the Aussies were only a loose bit of turf away from having won the opening test, at which point they could well have wrapped up the series with a game to go.

It was also noticeable how much better the Lions looked under a NH ref. Joubert and Poite are both excellent refs, but Poite was, IMHO, far more sympathetic to the Lions gameplan. That's going to be a limitation, because at least half the time you'll be playing SH sides with an SH ref.

Personally, I think the Welsh gameplan relies too much on a number of key things going their way - the right personnel, the "right" interpretation by the ref, being able to outlast the opposition. There's no real Plan B that I've seen. It's not easy to develop - it took Woodward's 2003 team 4 seasons to get one - but I think the basic strengths of the current Welsh squad may be working against them finding other ways to solve problems.

Biltong wrote:Claiming a team has superior fitness when it has been together for a week is a myth.

Gatland has no control over the fitness and management of his players unless they join up for a tournament such as the world cup where he has weeks or months to condition them.

This is an excellent point, and for me without taking away from the SH performances a large part of the reason they beat us so regularly, SA were together for near 3 months playing against the best, Wales were together for 6 days, they were never going to be ready and battle hardened.

No offence to Aus either, but they are a poor team currently, none of their performances of late, bar the last NZ game says they should come north and win, but England looked flat out rusty!

Watching all NH teams play the one thing they all had in common in the first half an hour was rust, I counted 11 passes to ground in the first 30 minutes of rugby from all home nations teams, 2/3 each, that is ridiculous!

All NH teams also conceded soft tries in the first half hour too.

Maybe the NH teams should shuffle their fixture lists and only play the big 3 in game 3/4 of the AI's? Ensure you warm up with the likes of Japan, Fiji, maybe Barbarians, then move onto Argentina, Tonga, Samoa, then target a SANZAR nation. Thats what I'd be looking for as a coach.

Or maybe we are seeing reasons for summer rugby and a world wide international season, where the 6N and RC are played simultaneously, with a pre tourny and post tourny tour by each hemisphere?

Leaving aside the fact that Wales are pants etc etc - (had to say that)

It has been pointed out that Wales have a small pool of really good players. Perhaps England have a bigger pool of perhaps not quite so good players.

That means that Welsh players have less competition for their places, and have to play every international. That may make it more difficult to really raise your game for say, Samoa, or Ireland. Why give everything against Samoa (or for your club) if your place is guaranteed. (And we saw from Lions selection that Gatland doesn't take recent club form into account).

So sometimes, Wales give excellent performances - like against England in the last 6N, or against SA last Saturday.

On the other hand, England can also turn in bad performances, like against Wales, or the half the match against Argentina and Australia.

In reality though, if England hadn't played so badly and Wales hadn't played so well in that one match, Wales might have been 3rd in the 6N, and all the press would be saying they're crap. Every side has good days and bad days (perhaps SA and NZ only have good days). That's why the rankings are the best guide to where a country is.

butterfingers wrote:

Biltong wrote:Claiming a team has superior fitness when it has been together for a week is a myth.

Gatland has no control over the fitness and management of his players unless they join up for a tournament such as the world cup where he has weeks or months to condition them.

This is an excellent point, and for me without taking away from the SH performances a large part of the reason they beat us so regularly, SA were together for near 3 months playing against the best, Wales were together for 6 days, they were never going to be ready and battle hardened.

No offence to Aus either, but they are a poor team currently, none of their performances of late, bar the last NZ game says they should come north and win, but England looked flat out rusty!

Watching all NH teams play the one thing they all had in common in the first half an hour was rust, I counted 11 passes to ground in the first 30 minutes of rugby from all home nations teams, 2/3 each, that is ridiculous!

All NH teams also conceded soft tries in the first half hour too.

Maybe the NH teams should shuffle their fixture lists and only play the big 3 in game 3/4 of the AI's? Ensure you warm up with the likes of Japan, Fiji, maybe Barbarians, then move onto Argentina, Tonga, Samoa, then target a SANZAR nation. Thats what I'd be looking for as a coach.

Or maybe we are seeing reasons for summer rugby and a world wide international season, where the 6N and RC are played simultaneously, with a pre tourny and post tourny tour by each hemisphere?

If thats the case then why does the NH teams do so badly in the Summer tours?

Then the SH teams are new, rusty and will not have been together for long.... yet NH teams often do worse then when they do during the AIs.
In reality it has little to do with it. Its just a rubbish excuse.

AIs - NH teams fresh but rusty. SH teams are tired but well drilled. Nearly always the SH teams win every game.
Summer tours - SH teams fresh but rusty. NH teams are tired but well drilled. Nearly always the SH teams win every game.

There is a little pattern emerging there... not sure what???

Alex_Germany wrote:So sometimes, Wales give excellent performances - like against England in the last 6N, or against SA last Saturday.

You must have watched a different game to me, Alex.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:So sometimes, Wales give excellent performances - like against England in the last 6N, or against SA last Saturday.

You must have watched a different game to me, Alex.

Maybe - I haven't read about the match, but just my view from what I saw, both teams played well. Wales gave an above-par performance, South Africa gave a on-par performance. And that isn't enough to close the rankings gaps. So South Africa won.

Fa

Have you seen some of the squad NH teams have sent over the years? At times it's been embarassing, especially the celts. There is also a break of some months between the 6N and the summer tour, whereas the RC finished a few weeks ago, and teams had a few warm up games while coming North too...

To say 3 months of prep compared to 6 days of prep is BS is totally blinkered in my opinion.

Theres also the issue of running 3 indipendent leagues, with 3 very differing styles of play, the pull of each of these leagues and the detriment it has competing against each other.

I'm not using the system as the only reason, infact if you read my other posts I am very critical about the NH junior set up in general, but at the top of the game where such small margins determine wins and losses, I'd prefer my squad having been together for 3 months than 6 days, wouldn't you?

Ah, for a global season.

In 2012 Wales, Ireland and England played a 3 test series each vs. AUS, NZ & SA respectively and all sent full squads.

The results were 12 games, 11 losses, 0 wins and 1 draw.

And that was when they were together and drilled and their opponents had no time together.

fa0019 wrote:In 2012 Wales, Ireland and England played a 3 test series each vs. AUS, NZ & SA respectively and all sent full squads.

The results were 12 games, 11 losses, 0 wins and 1 draw.

And that was when they were together and drilled and their opponents had no time together.

Was it really? Go and recheck the time that had lapsed between last 6N game, and first tour game.

Near 3 months passed before the 6N teams played their first games, they hadn't seen each other for 3 months. How exactly does that make them drilled?

2012 was one of the first times I recall NH teams sending solid teams south, Wales might have won 2 of their games had it not been for last minute tries, Ireland nearly won one and England struggled.

Also didn't Scotland beat Aus first up? MEaning Aus were beaten through rusty first up performance by one of the weakest NH teams?

Wales recent competition record is successive NH Championships and a RWC semi final courtesy of A Rolland. An injury ravaged team loses by 9 points to a SA side and those still hurting from the 30-3 debacle are out in force - Simples

RubyGuby wrote:Wales recent competition record is successive NH Championships and a RWC semi final courtesy of A Rolland. An injury ravaged team loses by 9 points to a SA side and those still hurting from the 30-3 debacle are out in force - Simples

But I'm still hurting from the 30-3 and Fa isn't, why are we debating Wales from different sides with no common interest then?!

As a Brit I wanted to see Wales beat SA (believe me I'm no fan of SA rugby), but they failed again so don't turn on fans who point that out and say Wales simply aren't good enough against SH opposition when the facts are there to back that up.

IMO Gatland and his team has taken Wales as far as they can.

RubyGuby wrote:Wales recent competition record is successive NH Championships and a RWC semi final courtesy of A Rolland. An injury ravaged team loses by 9 points to a SA side and those still hurting from the 30-3 debacle are out in force - Simples

Long ago I remember asking a welsh guy I knew why there was so little for kids to do in Swansea when it was raining (the wettest city in the UK) and he replied that it was because the Welsh were always such optimists

England the top northern side at the mo and that's from a Welsh man . one game dont make Wales the best .England can beat SH teams Wales can't . SH teams are better then us and we playing catch up but it will happen . gatland needs to change his game plan when facing them . playing contact with SA was madness but more so without CUTH and ROBERTS .

Wales are a good side with decent players but lack confidence and belief when playing the SH sides for whatever reason.

They don't have these problems when playing the 6 nations teams hence a decent RWC campaign and decent run in the 6 nations.

Perhaps Wales should have pretended SA were England.

Defensively and offensively Wales lost the battle - 3-0 against SA in regards to tries scored.


Wales have one of the best place kickers in the world but they need more than 3 pointers.

Creating more try scoring opportunities is important.

lostinwales wrote:Long ago I remember asking a welsh guy I knew why there was so little for kids to do in Swansea when it was raining (the wettest city in the UK) and he replied that it was because the Welsh were always such optimists

Looks like its catching.

Shaun Edwards: "I thought it was a Test match of epic proportions,"

Did I watch the same game?