Winners of the 6ns based on the Ais.

First topic message reminder :

Should be Ireland in first place.

England/Wales/Wales/England fighting it out for 2nd 3rd place.

Have not seen any of the France games or Scotland games for that matter.

Will their be a GRAND SLAM next year? probably not.

But it will be very exciting to see if the Ais have any bearing on the 6ns.

Your thoughts.

RuggerRadge2611, sorry about the above post, it was not aimed at the whole of the worlds different nationalities on here, but more at George himself for what he wrote on another topic. I am the same as your father, it does not feel like a victory for me last Saturday, it just doesn't. Ok, as the AI went on, Wales got better, but they played the same intense rugby throughout, but for me I know they are better, the only thing I take from Saturday was the fact that we DIDN'T bottle it, which might switch something on within these group of players, George North needs to be dropped, we have better wingers than him available to Wales, of the AI I think Scotland should look more at the way they conceded 4 tries against Argentina more than anything, because Italy aside, the 6N teams have more in their attack than Argentina do, will Scotland beat Wales at Murrifield ? I do not think they are strong enough, they will not be the easy ride up there that we have had over the past few years either, but that is just what I think.

And LD I think you will find that there are a number of welsh posters here who are well respected. Supporters of any ilk who are consistantly and extremely one eyed seldom are.

lostinwales wrote:And LD I think you will find that there are a number of welsh posters here who are well respected. Supporters of any ilk who are consistantly and extremely one eyed seldom are.

Well, lets be honest here, you have never hid your dislike for Wales or anyhting Welsh, but at least we know what we get from you.

LordDowlais wrote:RuggerRadge2611, sorry about the above post, it was not aimed at the whole of the worlds different nationalities on here, but more at George himself for what he wrote on another topic. I am the same as your father, it does not feel like a victory for me last Saturday, it just doesn't. Ok, as the AI went on, Wales got better, but they played the same intense rugby throughout, but for me I know they are better, the only thing I take from Saturday was the fact that we DIDN'T bottle it, which might switch something on within these group of players, George North needs to be dropped, we have better wingers than him available to Wales, of the AI I think Scotland should look more at the way they conceded 4 tries against Argentina more than anything, because Italy aside, the 6N teams have more in their attack than Argentina do, will Scotland beat Wales at Murrifield ? I do not think they are strong enough, they will not be the easy ride up there that we have had over the past few years either, but that is just what I think.

Scotland conceding tries against Argentina isn't a concern for me as such. It just shows that our strength in depth is very questionable. We are a couple of injuries away from being back to same old Scotland.

Again no excuses but Jim Hamilton (AKA the Violent Penalty Magnet got himself binned) and Rob Harley got sin binned for the Argentina lineout lifters dropping their own man.

As a team Scotland made massive changes in that second half and played 50% of the match with 14 men. The fact that we were so far ahead and had the chance to experiment against Argentina is a huge achievement in the first place.

I'm under no illusions though. Scotland's depth of squad is improving but we still have only one Test class fly half at our disposal.

Will we beat Wales at Murrayfield?

I think we will yes. I don't know anything for certain but I believe in this group of players. I'm still relatively young and this is the best Scotland team I can clearly remember. The performances of Glasgow in the pro12 in recent years suggest that if the core of that team translate their form to Scotland then yes IMO Scotland will win.

I see echo's of Gatland's first year at Wales in Cotter's arrival. The Ospreys were burning up the Magners league and he picked almost the entire Ospreys team for their opener against England at Twickers. Cotter seems to be doing the same by picking almost the entire Glasgow Squad for Scotland.

To English and Welsh fans:

Whats more important next year 'Winning 6 Nations or getting out of the Pool 'of death' in the RWC? '

TightHEAD wrote:To English and Welsh fans:

Whats more important next year 'Winning 6 Nations or getting out of the Pool 'of death' in the RWC? '

OOOoooohhhhh, good question, I suppose getting out of the pool of death would be my choice, but we do not necessarily need to beat England to do that, I think we will lose to England in our group, so we must target the Aussies, again. But, we are due a win against them, Aren't we ? Yeah, to summarise, getting out of our group would be my choice, there will always be another 6N, but a WC is every 4 years.

I am with LD, getting out of the group would be the one for me next year, we can wait until 2016 for the next 6 Nations if we have to

I agree to a point, it would be a disaster for England not to make it out of the pool.

But as a English fan (I'm greedy) I want both, and so should you!

Aim high.

TightHEAD wrote:I agree to a point, it would be a disaster for England not to make it out of the pool.

But as a English fan (I'm greedy) I want both, and so should you!

Aim high.

I did not know BOTH was an option, of course I want both, but I will take the WC for now.

Winning the 6 nations is generally more of an achievement than getting out of your pool. In the 6 nations you have to out do (probably) at least 3 other decent teams. To get out of the pool you have to out do 1.

Def both but that wasn't the question

George Carlin wrote:

The Saint wrote:

TJ wrote:The saint - Scotland have more victories over SH teams than Wales have over the last few years.  does it make them a better team?

The facts of the matter are neither England nor Wales will ever get more than the occasional win against SH teams playing the way they did to get the win in this AI series.  I think thats Wales first win for ages?  

I'm not too sure where you're coming from this. I'm trying to talk to a delusional fan who thinks england are THAT much greater than WALES based on this autumn.

To answer your question, most certainly not. Scotland's record is poor against not only Wales, but most other teams in the past decade or however many years you prefer. You haven't been anywhere near better than Wales in years. And vs the SH, don't you have like one more win than us? Well done...

Well, let's see, shall we, before you get too moist with excitement:

Number of times Wales have beaten South Africa: 2 times in 30 attempts (6.67% success)
Number of times Scotland have beaten South Africa: 5 times in 25 attempts (20% success)

Number of times Wales have beaten Australia: 10 times in 38 attempts (26% success)
Number of times Scotland have beaten Australia: 9 times in 28 attempts (32% success)

Wales managed to scape past the poorest South African side I ever recall seeing at the end of a season where they were already crippled with injuries. As I mentioned at the time, well done with that and you should enjoy the victory.

However, you may wish to know that in the eyes of most neutrals I know, Wales are not currently on a par with England or Ireland. I believe that both the 6 Nations and the RWC will bear this out, but you are of course free to sneeze your antagonistic prose all over these boards in the meantime.

I just wish that you would write with a little more balance and a little more respect for other people here.

How can you write this comment and then ask other people to have a bit more respect?

We were talking about the last few years btw, not history. Throughout history Wales were bigger on rugby than Scotland and perhaps a slightly more favoured place to tour, so naturally they'd have played more tests. In the time frame I said, off the top of my head, I counted just one more win against the SH for Scotland. It's nothing to be bragging about. Also in that time frame is the little matter of Wales/Scotland head-to-head; with this in mind I can never understand why Scotland rugby fans criticise Welsh rugby.

I know when Wales win it's only because the other side was crippled, had plague, were out-reffed, etc.. But i'll take the win. I'm sure Scotland would have liked a win in their last two attempts against SA. How did those games go again?

I never once said Wales were on par with England or Ireland. My argument was that England are not on par with Ireland, and not THAT much greater than Wales as one poster discussed. Then I had posters coming in with silly comments and you seem to have joined on. For what it's worth, Scotland have improved, a lot. Can't predict anything for them yet as it's early days. The 6 Nations isn't full of mugs though, so good luck.

George Carlin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just for people to know, the South Africa side that Wales beat, had 11 players that beat the All Blacks a few weeks before, so they were not that stripped of players.

Quite right. 

Why deal in the cold waters of the real world by acknowledging the usual Bok squad members who were injured (Warren Whiteley, Jannie du Plessis, Frans Malherbe, Marcel van der Merwe, Fourie du Preez, Ruan Pienaar, Schalk Brits, Flip van der Merwe, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Francois Louw, Siya Kolisi, Arno Botha, Pierre Spies and Willem Alberts) or those based in Europe and Japan whose clubs wouldn't release them for the game (for example, Jano Vermaak, Johan Goosen, Bryan Habana and JP Pietersen).

Usual members? A few of the big names in there yes, but not everyone on that entire list. And if you're going to include retired players we may as well include Wales' retired players over the last couple years...

I think a lot depends on the opener. If England win in Cardiff I can see them winning the tournament (possibly on points difference from Ireland). If England lose I fancy Ireland to win the tournament (possibly on points difference from Wales).

The 6N is a strange NH beast, so who knows.

Ire have recently shown the best form, but tbh didn’t look much ahead of the other teams, particularly against Aus (who everyone beats).

England have stagnated a bit, failed to beat a poor SA (who everyone else is beating), but looked comfortable against Aus.

Wales looked off the boil – they lost to Aus for gawds sake – but beat a poor SA (who everyone else is beating - apart from Eng!).

Scotland have declared dark horse status.

France are carp.

Pick the bones out of that – I guess home advantage will tell.

Having said all this, nevertheless England will win.

The Saint wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just for people to know, the South Africa side that Wales beat, had 11 players that beat the All Blacks a few weeks before, so they were not that stripped of players.

Quite right. 

Why deal in the cold waters of the real world by acknowledging the usual Bok squad members who were injured (Warren Whiteley, Jannie du Plessis, Frans Malherbe, Marcel van der Merwe, Fourie du Preez, Ruan Pienaar, Schalk Brits, Flip van der Merwe, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Francois Louw, Siya Kolisi, Arno Botha, Pierre Spies and Willem Alberts) or those based in Europe and Japan whose clubs wouldn't release them for the game (for example, Jano Vermaak, Johan Goosen, Bryan Habana and JP Pietersen).

Usual members? A few of the big names in there yes, but not everyone on that entire list. And if you're going to include retired players we may as well include Wales' retired players over the last couple years...

I see, so you only include players who are 'big names' in your estimation?  

I think I'll just end this here. Why not have a look at this video and see if it speaks to you in any way:

You're both coming across like lemons, just sayin.

The 6nations is going to be very interesting! I'm hoping Scotland will keep improving, they've threatened to come to life for a few years now but have never really 'clicked' consistently but Cotters a coach I rate hugely. I'd swap him an Gatland in a second truth be told!

You can only beat whats in front of you is the saying isnt it? I think a fair few posters should go back and apply that to their own teams previous wins before trying to hit other fans with that very same stick....

Not that anyone has been gloating about victory over SA, you got to love how when a Welsh team does it the excuses come flying in from all corners! Just saying.

HammerofThunor wrote:Winning the 6 nations is generally more of an achievement than getting out of your pool. In the 6 nations you have to out do (probably) at least 3 other decent teams. To get out of the pool you have to out do 1.

Sly dog......

bedfordwelsh wrote:Def both but that wasn't the question

Maybe, but interesting that two of you both jumped on the pool win rather than winning the 6 nations or choosing both!

I suppose you could say doing well in the 6N gives you gloating rites for a year, whereas doing well in the RWC gives you gloating rites for four.

lostinwales wrote:I suppose you could say doing well in the 6N gives you gloating rites for a year, whereas doing well in the RWC gives you gloating rites for four.

No, being the All Blacks gives you gloating rights for decades at a time.  And the day after they don't win the world cup and lose 1st place ranking is the day they take back 1st ranking and normal service is resumed as to who the best side are.

So no - in preference to the 6N, or its GS, or the WC, I'd like to simply be 1st ranked side in the world for 113 months out of 132!  In other words, I'd like to be known as eternal Choakers.

TightHEAD wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Def both but that wasn't the question

Maybe, but interesting that two of you both jumped on the pool win rather than winning the 6 nations or choosing both!

Again because both wasn't the question or an option.

lostinwales wrote:I suppose you could say doing well in the 6N gives you gloating rites for a year, whereas doing well in the RWC gives you gloating rites for four.

Cant help but think that 2015 rwc gloating rights between English and Welsh fans would go on longer than 4 years!

bedfordwelsh wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Def both but that wasn't the question

Maybe, but interesting that two of you both jumped on the pool win rather than winning the 6 nations or choosing both!

Again because both wasn't the question or an option.

Both was always an option.

TightHEAD wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I suppose you could say doing well in the 6N gives you gloating rites for a year, whereas doing well in the RWC gives you gloating rites for four.

Cant help but think that 2015 rwc gloating rights between English and Welsh fans would go on longer than 4 years!

 Unfortunately it goes both ways. How often have we heard the line about how much we have won since 2003

If Wales won it would be LEVEL Pegging yet again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  All would be right with the World as England could never throw an allusion to 2003 across the bows of the Welsh during their yearly fist fight build up to their game in the 6N.

If England won though.................................................................................  I'm not going to even go there.  Double spoonfuls come to mind though.  Second helpings of leer for the seasonal boxing match during the 6N.

TightHEAD wrote:To English and Welsh fans:

Whats more important next year 'Winning 6 Nations or getting out of the Pool 'of death' in the RWC? '

The or in that sentence means that an answer is required between the two options given. Which were 'winning 6 Nations/getting out of Pool of death.

lostinwales wrote:I suppose you could say doing well in the 6N gives you gloating rites for a year, whereas doing well in the RWC gives you gloating rites for four.

The World cup is all weve got to gloat about, The ABs dont play in the 6N.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I suppose you could say doing well in the 6N gives you gloating rites for a year, whereas doing well in the RWC gives you gloating rites for four.

The World cup is all weve got to gloat about, The ABs dont play in the 6N.

yes but this is in response to the would we rather progress in the RWC or win the 6N question. And as for the RWC what matters is getting further through the competition than our rivals. Thinking about challenging for the win is for if/when we make it through the semi final

lostinwales wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I suppose you could say doing well in the 6N gives you gloating rites for a year, whereas doing well in the RWC gives you gloating rites for four.

The World cup is all weve got to gloat about, The ABs dont play in the 6N.

yes but this is in response to the would we rather progress in the RWC or win the 6N question. And as for the RWC what matters is getting further through the competition than our rivals. Thinking about challenging for the win is for if/when we make it through the semi final

Fair call L.I.W. I'll keep my big nose out of it. it doesnt apply to us.

in terms of RWCs people only remember the winners. Who cares if Ireland reaches a semis and Wales only a quarters? No one.

And winning one ensures gloating rights for a lot longer than 4 years. NZ, Aus and SA with 2 wins each have the gloating rights currently. England have some respectability and the others.........

bedfordwelsh wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:To English and Welsh fans:

Whats more important next year 'Winning 6 Nations or getting out of the Pool 'of death' in the RWC? '

The or in that sentence means that an answer is required between the two options given.  Which were 'winning 6 Nations/getting out of Pool of death.

You have your own mind.

How long do Gloating rights last for though?

Surely the longer you have to trackback to find the Gloat, the more pronounced the idea is that you never did quite follow though or on?

hugehandoff wrote:in terms of RWCs people only remember the winners. Who cares if Ireland reaches a semis and Wales only a quarters? No one.

And winning one ensures gloating rights for a lot longer than 4 years. NZ, Aus and SA with 2 wins each have the gloating rights currently. England have some respectability and the others.........

France has also been fairly respectable, even if they have never won. Most championships have had finals contested by either England or France on one side and one of the three main SH teams on the other, and all of those except one have of course been won by the SH team...

hugehandoff wrote:in terms of RWCs people only remember the winners. Who cares if Ireland reaches a semis and Wales only a quarters? No one.

And winning one ensures gloating rights for a lot longer than 4 years. NZ, Aus and SA with 2 wins each have the gloating rights currently. England have some respectability and the others.........

That really depends on how clever you are and how good your memory is.

I can certainly remember the 1991 World Cup and how Scotland reached the semi-finals, narrowly missing out on a place in the final. The fact that I'd rather Scotland made the knock-out stages than drop out at the group stage suggests that it is rather important to do we and progress as far as possible at the World Cup. If winning the final was all that mattered then all but a small number of sides shouldn't really bother.

I still cannot believe that Gavin miss!!! Of course winning the final is all that matters. England lost the final after this match and accordingly that RWC was a failure.....albeit a glorious one with some memorable matches (the France 1/4 win in Paris still ranks as one of my ever days).

LordDowlais wrote:RuggerRadge2611, sorry about the above post, it was not aimed at the whole of the worlds different nationalities on here, but more at George himself for what he wrote on another topic. I am the same as your father, it does not feel like a victory for me last Saturday, it just doesn't. Ok, as the AI went on, Wales got better, but they played the same intense rugby throughout, but for me I know they are better, the only thing I take from Saturday was the fact that we DIDN'T bottle it, which might switch something on within these group of players, George North needs to be dropped, we have better wingers than him available to Wales, of the AI I think Scotland should look more at the way they conceded 4 tries against Argentina more than anything, because Italy aside, the 6N teams have more in their attack than Argentina do, will Scotland beat Wales at Murrifield ? I do not think they are strong enough, they will not be the easy ride up there that we have had over the past few years either, but that is just what I think.

If you had said that 6 months ago, you would have been hung, drawn and quartered before they burnt your entrails before your still living eyes.

England's RWC bragging rights are slightly enhanced by the fact that they have also made two other finals. One we lost because we were "shamed" into trying to play Aussie style rugby by our own press, (owned by an Australian) when the side was set up to play 10 man rugby and grind other sides into the dust. The 2007 final was lost due to tv replays erroneously showing Cueto's foot touching the line. So really we should have won it three times and have bragging rights for 1000 years

With SOB and Healy to come back after the New year, Ireland will take the slam. Providing the 2 best halfbacks in the competition (possibly the world) don't get injured!

PredictorofTeams wrote:With SOB and Healy to come back after the New year, Ireland will take the slam. Providing the 2 best halfbacks in the competition (possibly the world) don't get injured!

You been reading the Telegraph?

Taylorman wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais it wasn't the last 10. it was the last 20.

Wales were winning with ten minutes to go, so it was the last ten, thank you very much, then what killed us was, our bench was nowhere near the qlty of the AllBlacks bench, and we were not as fit as them.

beshocked wrote:Yes you could argue the scoreline flattered England but it wasn't a thumping like Wales-NZ..

The scorline flattered the AllBlacks in our game as well if you ask me, at least wew were in the game with them, England were never anywhere near the AllBlacks in any part of the game.

Okay fine you were leading by 1 point before NZ took the lead back swiftly.  I was backing NZ to win because they just looked stronger than the fatigued Welsh team.

It was NZ's 2nd try in the 63rd minute when they started to up their intensity.

Inevitable that NZ would get one more at least.

Don't think the scoreline flattered the ABs - it was combination of ABs piling on the pressure and Wales running out of steam.

If you are in a race you have to pace yourself - Wales didn't, in the end ABs won at a canter because they absorbed the Welsh pressure then went on the attack. Wales had to work so hard to keep up with the ABs that in the end they couldn't which led to a try burst for the ABs.

Matching someone for 60 odd minutes isn't good enough in a 80 minute match.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/29726120

I never had the feeling that Wales would beat the ABs even when they were ahead.

It wasn't a lack of Welsh fitness or first XV ability so much as a lack of an equally talented bench. They brought on Slade, who started probing the Welsh defence with short kicks behind the fast and flat defence. That's how they got tries. That and Mike Phillips being complacent when clearing to touch and getting charged down.

As I mentioned elsewhere, with a few more fit players returning Wales will have a good bench with good options and their fortunes will look very good.

Wales biggest conundrum is whether there is a better option to play inside centre. A skilled ball player, alternative to Roberts, maybe Scott Williams? Even the mercurial Henson has been mentioned.

Similar issues effect england. Back line looks so much better without Farrell and with a half decent lad like Twelvetrees.

The Welsh players looked pretty stuffed to me. But its a bit of both and depends on how you interpret 'impact'. Our incoming players are told to go on and do something to win the game, or advance the score. They don't come on to 'relieve tired bodies, or maintain the current pattern'....'fit in where they're needed'

These are the center stage guys now. They run the show and are selected to steal it no matter how. They mix it up, they do things differently...they provide impact. That's why a Slade can come on and try a high risk play on the 22 on attack- because that's the job- to make a difference. The starting side take the stuffing out of the opposition and the impact players come in and clean up the mess. World cup year these guys are going to be the key, and why the AB's are trying to expose so many to test rugby/ pressure this year.

I hope with a few players returning to form and fitness Wales will have a bench that will be able to do more than replace injured bodies. Remember we lost our scrum half and replaced him with the idiot who kicked a ball into Kieran Rieds grasp...

What you are talking about us something all teams would like to achieve but unless the players of tgat quality are fit and on form then its a pipe dream.

maestegmafia wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais it wasn't the last 10. it was the last 20.

Wales were winning with ten minutes to go, so it was the last ten, thank you very much, then what killed us was, our bench was nowhere near the qlty of the AllBlacks bench, and we were not as fit as them.

beshocked wrote:Yes you could argue the scoreline flattered England but it wasn't a thumping like Wales-NZ..

The scorline flattered the AllBlacks in our game as well if you ask me, at least wew were in the game with them, England were never anywhere near the AllBlacks in any part of the game.

Okay fine you were leading by 1 point before NZ took the lead back swiftly.  I was backing NZ to win because they just looked stronger than the fatigued Welsh team.

It was NZ's 2nd try in the 63rd minute when they started to up their intensity.

Inevitable that NZ would get one more at least.

Don't think the scoreline flattered the ABs - it was combination of ABs piling on the pressure and Wales running out of steam.

If you are in a race you have to pace yourself - Wales didn't, in the end ABs won at a canter because they absorbed the Welsh pressure then went on the attack. Wales had to work so hard to keep up with the ABs that in the end they couldn't which led to a try burst for the ABs.

Matching someone for 60 odd minutes isn't good enough in a 80 minute match.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/29726120

I never had the feeling that Wales would beat the ABs even when they were ahead.

It wasn't a lack of Welsh fitness or first XV ability so much as a lack of an equally talented bench. They brought on Slade, who started probing the Welsh defence with short kicks behind the fast and flat defence. That's how they got tries. That and Mike Phillips being complacent when clearing to touch and getting charged down.

As I mentioned elsewhere, with a few more fit players returning Wales will have a good bench with good options and their fortunes will look very good.

Wales biggest conundrum is whether there is a better option to play inside centre. A skilled ball player, alternative to Roberts, maybe Scott Williams? Even the mercurial Henson has been mentioned.

Similar issues effect england. Back line looks so much better without Farrell and with a half decent lad like Twelvetrees.

The Welsh players looked pretty stuffed to me. But its a bit of both and depends on how you interpret 'impact'. Our incoming players are told to go on and do something to win the game, or advance the score. They don't come on to 'relieve tired bodies, or maintain the current pattern'....'fit in where they're needed'

These are the center stage guys now. They run the show and are selected to steal it no matter how. They mix it up, they do things differently...they provide impact. That's why a Slade can come on and try a high risk play on the 22 on attack- because that's the job- to make a difference. The starting side take the stuffing out of the opposition and the impact players come in and clean up the mess. World cup year these guys are going to be the key, and why the AB's are trying to expose so many to test rugby/ pressure this year.

I hope with a few players returning to form and fitness Wales will have a bench that will be able to do more than replace injured bodies. Remember we lost our scrum half and replaced him with the idiot who kicked a ball into Kieran Rieds grasp...

What you are talking about us something all teams would like to achieve but unless the players of tgat quality are fit and on form then its a pipe dream.

One thing you can do is look at players in terms of the pure ability to provide impact alone. Liam Williams looks as though he fits that category. When he played versus the AB's a couple of years ago he stood out as someone willing to have a go at short notice. Some players fluff around wanting to 'warm into the game'. Fitness itself isn't necessarily the highest requirement for impact players. They need to burst for 20 minutes or so.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: I don't know anything for certain but I believe in this group of players. I'm still relatively young and this is the best Scotland team I can clearly remember. .

I am not relatively young having followed scotland since the 70s. Ths is the best group of players we have had for a very long time. 1990 might have been better ( in comparison to the other home nations) but since then?

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Winning the 6 nations is generally more of an achievement than getting out of your pool. In the 6 nations you have to out do (probably) at least 3 other decent teams. To get out of the pool you have to out do 1.

 Sly dog......

Great omen for Wales considering since the last RWC we have won two of the three six nations championships and our group rivals haven't won any...!

Or is that unfair on the other good team in our group and fiji?

Taylorman wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais it wasn't the last 10. it was the last 20.

Wales were winning with ten minutes to go, so it was the last ten, thank you very much, then what killed us was, our bench was nowhere near the qlty of the AllBlacks bench, and we were not as fit as them.

beshocked wrote:Yes you could argue the scoreline flattered England but it wasn't a thumping like Wales-NZ..

The scorline flattered the AllBlacks in our game as well if you ask me, at least wew were in the game with them, England were never anywhere near the AllBlacks in any part of the game.

Okay fine you were leading by 1 point before NZ took the lead back swiftly.  I was backing NZ to win because they just looked stronger than the fatigued Welsh team.

It was NZ's 2nd try in the 63rd minute when they started to up their intensity.

Inevitable that NZ would get one more at least.

Don't think the scoreline flattered the ABs - it was combination of ABs piling on the pressure and Wales running out of steam.

If you are in a race you have to pace yourself - Wales didn't, in the end ABs won at a canter because they absorbed the Welsh pressure then went on the attack. Wales had to work so hard to keep up with the ABs that in the end they couldn't which led to a try burst for the ABs.

Matching someone for 60 odd minutes isn't good enough in a 80 minute match.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/29726120

I never had the feeling that Wales would beat the ABs even when they were ahead.

It wasn't a lack of Welsh fitness or first XV ability so much as a lack of an equally talented bench. They brought on Slade, who started probing the Welsh defence with short kicks behind the fast and flat defence. That's how they got tries. That and Mike Phillips being complacent when clearing to touch and getting charged down.

As I mentioned elsewhere, with a few more fit players returning Wales will have a good bench with good options and their fortunes will look very good.

Wales biggest conundrum is whether there is a better option to play inside centre. A skilled ball player, alternative to Roberts, maybe Scott Williams? Even the mercurial Henson has been mentioned.

Similar issues effect england. Back line looks so much better without Farrell and with a half decent lad like Twelvetrees.

The Welsh players looked pretty stuffed to me. But its a bit of both and depends on how you interpret 'impact'. Our incoming players are told to go on and do something to win the game, or advance the score. They don't come on to 'relieve tired bodies, or maintain the current pattern'....'fit in where they're needed'

These are the center stage guys now. They run the show and are selected to steal it no matter how. They mix it up, they do things differently...they provide impact. That's why a Slade can come on and try a high risk play on the 22 on attack- because that's the job- to make a difference. The starting side take the stuffing out of the opposition and the impact players come in and clean up the mess. World cup year these guys are going to be the key, and why the AB's are trying to expose so many to test rugby/ pressure this year.

I hope with a few players returning to form and fitness Wales will have a bench that will be able to do more than replace injured bodies. Remember we lost our scrum half and replaced him with the idiot who kicked a ball into Kieran Rieds grasp...

What you are talking about us something all teams would like to achieve but unless the players of tgat quality are fit and on form then its a pipe dream.

One thing you can do is look at players in terms of the pure ability to provide impact alone. Liam Williams looks as though he fits that category. When he played versus the AB's a couple of years ago he stood out as someone willing to have a go at short notice. Some players fluff around wanting to 'warm into the game'. Fitness itself isn't necessarily the highest requirement for impact players. They need to burst for 20 minutes or so.

I was referring more to the players we couldn't select vs the ABs this year due to injury and those returning to good form.

PredictorofTeams wrote:With SOB and Healy to come back after the New year, Ireland will take the slam. Providing the 2 best halfbacks in the competition (possibly the world) don't get injured!

Ford and Care?

rodders wrote:

PredictorofTeams wrote:With SOB and Healy to come back after the New year, Ireland will take the slam. Providing the 2 best halfbacks in the competition (possibly the world) don't get injured!

Ford and Care?

Phillips and Priestland not that good but you're more than welcome to them both.

The Saint wrote:

PredictorofTeams wrote:With SOB and Healy to come back after the New year, Ireland will take the slam. Providing the 2 best halfbacks in the competition (possibly the world) don't get injured!

You been reading the Telegraph?

that cracked me up.

Winners of the 6ns based on the AIs would probably be Ireland as they had the best AIs but quite a few unknown quantities.

France - don't know what to expect from them

Scotland - yet again they've laid claim to the dark horses tag. Cause for optimism with a new coach and a better style of rugby but in arguably four fixtures they will be underdogs.

Wales - will their win over SA mean that they are now a stronger side mentally?

I think that's their 1st win over a tri nations side with Gatland at the helm.

England - will we see a more attacking game from them in the 6 nations?

Ireland - deserved favourites, will that favourites tag help or hinder them?

Italy - the heavy underdogs, can they spring a surprise at home? Unlikely but if sides get complacent....

Looks like all Ireland's provinces will get ko'd of the Anglo French cup in the group stages. This may well help Ireland in the 6N and WC.