Wales bad team over night or fading star?

Ive heard varying opinions over what Wales result against England means. The consensus is that 'Wales haven't become a bad team over night'.

I've had a look at Wales results over the past 18 months (covering a relevant time frame). Wales have played 16 test matches won 7 and lost 9. So Wales have won only 44% of their games since November 2013.

Wales certainly are not a 'bad' team but surely these results show that Wales are also a average team and have fallen fairly dramatically from their days as being the best in the NH?

Neither. A good team. The result against England means England were better last game (and Wales worse). Just that.
Has no bearing on the next game.
A lot of us have been saying for a while Gatland needs to come up with a plan b.
Plan a is great - when it works.
Some seriously good players - genuine world class. Don't go writing them off - I certainly won't.

Wales are not a bad team.

But lets talk about the Coaches as that is another story!

Wales haven't become a bad team but over the past 12-18 months we have become a very predictable team who can't adapt when things go wrong and other teams know that.

As for coaches Howley and McBryde especially well I never considered them good anway.

Wales' hasn't been as good a team as many (mainly in Wales) have thought for quite some time. Let's be clear though - talking Wales up exists a lot on forums like this and in the Welsh press. Most "average" Welsh fans (and I'm one) are well aware of the teams limitations and engage in very realistic conversations about the team, it's performances and prospects.

So yes - neither. No team becomes good or bad overnight. Most are steadily progressing or steadily declining. IMO right now - Wales are certainly not steadily progressing.

I would suggest that they were never as good as they were sometimes hyped up to be and that they are not currently as bad as some people are suggesting.

I think they are probably a little bit weaker than they were a couple of years ago (my opinion) and the bench on Friday night is evidence that there may not be sufficient strength in depth and new talent coming through.

At the risk of stating the obvious Wales need to put in a proper performance against the Scots.

Scotland are definitely on the up - Wales need to prove they aren't on the way down.

wales record under gatland is 50%. so 44% in the last 18months is admittedly slightly worse, although that does include 2 AIs and only 1 6Ns. If you take it back another 6 months to the previous 6N which Wales won (although you would have to include the loss to Japan!) the percentage pops back up to around 50.

wales were never as great as some people would have had us believe. they are about as good as they were, in my opinion, but improvements at 9 and 10 have been offset by the change in scrum laws, and teams learning how to counter Gatball.

however they are clear underdogs to escape their pool unless they change style somehow, as england and australia look much more likely to score tries and hence secure bonus points.

Come on the Jocks.

Wales are a team struggling to find new methods to surprise the opposition.

Have they gotten bad?

I don't think their individual qualities have sunk - this Welsh side would probably still beat an Ireland, France, England, Scotland and Italy of 4, 5 or 6 years ago.

But that's probably the point.  Wales have kept doing what they're doing in terms of strategies - the others, (many of them, not all of them), have improved.  That's not to say Wales can't win matches - they obviously still have the talent to win but the balance has gone away from them.

Welsh players are meeting players now who have either improved in the conditioning required and/or have renewed an 'interest' in International now that they are getting proper clinical coaching (Ireland & Scotland).

So the issue isn't so much about where Wales are but maybe moreso that Gatland should start appreciating where others sides might have gone to.  

Gatlandball can still be effective but it requires a lot more effort and perhaps the payback at this stage might be considered inadequate to sustain the blueprint.  Roberts' crash bang shock'n'awe game, for example, drains him as much as the opposition, especially when the opposition have learned how to counter him.  So it becomes self-defeating to metaphorically keep hitting a brick wall tactically if the wall has been reinforced by good coaching all round on the opposition side.

For me, perhaps a return to one or two juicier wings of more diminutive size and of fancy tight evasive footwork might begin to find new openings.... at least have it as an alternative weapon in certain games.  Variety.
Anyway, if Wales continue to underperform through this 6N, I still feel they'll come back with a bit of a 'surprise' bang come the WC.

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

48% win rate but three 6 nations titles.

I guess Welsh fans are happy with those three titles.

23 wins in 35 games against 6 nations opposition isn't bad.

2 wins in 25 games vs the tri nations - not so good.

Gatland also has wins over Namibia,Samoa,Canada, Tonga and Fiji to boost his win figures.

Wales backs can be very effective - if they win the forward battle. On the back foot and they are being tackled behind the gainline, the forwards have to retreat to win the ball, it is slow ball and the pattern repeats.

So much of their game is also built on defence. If you try and force things, ball in hand from the wrong places on the pitch they can cut you down to size, secure turnover and tear you a new one.

2013 v England. For 55 minutes we had a tight and very tough match - but Wales were pulling away because 1/2p slotted the kicks and Farrell did not. Add in Tuilagi dropping a pass that, while not terribly sympathetic, he should have done to stroll under the posts. England then tried to force matters and from turnovers scored two very good tries and had a dominant scoreline.

2014 v NZ. For 60 minutes NZ try to play the game from too deep in their own half and the game is 13-13. Then the Kiwis seem to flick a switch and start to kick and win the kicking game and score at quicker than a point per minute.



When things work Wales can match the best and hammer those below that. The weakness in their gameplan is obvious to all - but only a team with a good pack and playing well can take advantage.


As to the recent win/loss ratio, well nothing new.

Since Gats took over:

Played 87 Won 43, Lost 43 Draw 1

Wales are a team of peaks and troughs under Gatland (in contrast a team like NZ mainly has peaks while a team like Italy mainly has troughs!). None of the other 6N teams seem to yo yo like this though. I'm not happy about that, but before him we mainly had troughs so that is maybe where Welsh fans might be happy to accept it. As beshocked says, at least 3 titles is something to show for it.#

So I don't think we're necessarily fading - we're just repeating history to a certain extent. Next season is due to be our (Gats) year again!

Griff wrote:Wales are a team of peaks and troughs under Gatland (in contrast a team like NZ mainly has peaks while a team like Italy mainly has troughs!).  None of the other 6N teams seem to yo yo like this though.  I'm not happy about that, but before him we mainly had troughs so that is maybe where Welsh fans might be happy to accept it.  As beshocked says, at least 3 titles is something to show for it.#

So I don't think we're necessarily fading - we're just repeating history to a certain extent.  Next season is due to be our (Gats) year again!

Griff,

Let's be honest its been boom or bust since the after the 70s really.

Maybe the severe up/down charting of Wales both in terms of 6N and world ranking has something (a tad?) to do with Welshness (in personality)??

They say some Nations are 'hotblooded' and some 'coldblooded'.  England and Germany would probably be cliched 'coldblooded' nations - pragmatic, grimly dogged without being sweaty and emotional about it.

Spain and Italy would be on the cliched 'hotblooded' side - passionate, erratically mooded, prone to big depressions and effusive happiness.

So Wales too (cliched or not) has that kind of reputation as a place full of people on the edge emotionally - fully ready to be deleriously happy, yet ready at the drop of a coin to be morbidly depressed.  Passionate.

So maybe it's the personality of it's people that takes Welsh rugby on such a journey of steep uphill headiness to the steep rolldown gloom?  Maybe the rugby reflects the people?

Do all the stats that people are quoting include the time out that Gatland had to coach the Lions?

One interesting point I heard made by one of the Scrum 5 pundits was that very few of the more established players in the Welsh setup are getting better or clearly developing as players compared to where they were a few seasons ago. For me the obvious exception is Biggar, who has clearly improved.

I look at 1/2p, Cuthbert, Davies, Roberts, Hibbard, Jenkins, Lydiate, and Faletau and I don't see players who have evolved with the game. Most of these have been at the top level in Wales for a while but as the game has moved on I don't see the same individual development. BOD was used as an example of a player at the top of his game for well over a decade and who reinvented himself to stay at the top.

I also look at more established English players and I see improvement in players like Brown, Youngs, Marler, Lawes, Robshaw. Just a thought.

I look at 1/2p, Cuthbert, Davies, Roberts, Hibbard, Jenkins, Lydiate, and Faletau and I don't see players who have evolved with the game. Most of these have been at the top level in Wales for a while but as the game has moved on I don't see the same individual development.

There in lies Wales' biggest challenge.

So is that down to coaching at their clubs not getting the best of them or is it an individual responsibility?

It was only last Friday (10mins into the game) Wales were on the up!

I don't think Wales became a bad team over night. If you look back at the 2013 game England v Wales, if you watched the national anthems. every player in the welsh side sang their hearts out, they had pride in the shirt, they wanted to be there.

If you look back to last friday's game the Welsh players looked, to me any way that they did not want to be there.

Some of the player's Jamie Roberts, have become so predictable with his crash ball through the middle that it does not work any more.

Wales used to like to run the ball using their backs and their wings now it seems more like kick the ball and hope for turn overs, penalties in Halfpenny's range with the boot.

Is this their game plan now? is this how they are being coached? or is it more a spare of the moment thing( on the field of play at that moment in time?)

Not a bad team, but stale. They are essentially the same team they were at their peak whilst their rivals have evolved. Wales have stopped progressing. And when you're not progressing you risk being figured out and overtaken.

They need to find a few new ways of playing, a little bit more tactical depth, introduce some new details into their game we haven't seen before- they have stopped taking anybody by surprise. They are still really hard to play against, and hard to put away, but have become easy to prepare for.

Notch wrote: They are still really hard to play against, and hard to put away, but have become easy to prepare for.

Well put Sir.

Neitehr for me. For me the issue is the predictable gameplan that has been used for so long the tactics to counter it are fairly obvious. You know the welsh back 3 will kick long and infeild from their own half. You know there will be a lot of crash ball from roberts. so you canset your tactics to counter this. Basically Warrenball has been sussed out.

TJ wrote: Basically Warrenball has been sussed out.

Yet, should they manage to win the forward battle it could suddenly be effective again.

LondonTiger wrote:

TJ wrote: Basically Warrenball has been sussed out.

Yet, should they manage to win the forward battle it could suddenly be effective again.

Firstly how likely are they to win the forward battle. Are there a whole succession of alternative forwards that have not been tried? I do not think so.

If they win the forward battle it would tie in the opposition pack. It would then be a question of whether Jamie Roberts running very very slowly at the opposition midfield is going to break down their defence. I cannot see it. In the last few years the opposition have got bigger, fitter and are better drilled in defence.

TJ wrote:Neitehr for me.  For me the issue is the predictable gameplan that has been used for so long the tactics to counter it are fairly obvious.  You know the welsh back 3 will kick long and infeild from their own half.  You know there will be a lot of crash ball from roberts.  so you canset your tactics to counter this.  Basically Warrenball has been sussed out.

Being a bit pedantic here, but 'Welsh back 3'?! Halfpenny maybe, but you don't see North or Cuthbert kicking. They can't! They're rubbish at it. Maybe they might try the odd chip over, but they don't do clearances kicks. Halfpenny kicks long and in field and the wings chase. If that scenario can't happen then halfpenny takes contact/slips over until it's recycled and it can be kicked long either by him or Biggar/Priestland (aka no plan B!).

TightHEAD wrote:It was only last Friday (10mins into the game) Wales were on the up!

Even the try was scored from a scrum moving backwards. A team can score points whilst being outplayed. Occassionally the poorer team will win a match.  Most times they will not. Over time teams get the results their play deserves. Wales are ranked sixth in the world which is about right.

I cannot see them moving significantly from sixth.  There are not queues of better players waiting in the wings. Even though people criticise Warrenball, Wales do not have a load of players capables of playing a different type of game.  England have a choice they could play Farrell, Barritt, Tuilagi or Ford, Eastmond, Joseph.  Clearly those back lines would play a different style.  Who is the alternative to Biggar, Roberts and Davies? If realistically there is not one then you need to play the game they are capable of playing. That is Warrenball.

Exiledinborders wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It was only last Friday (10mins into the game) Wales were on the up!

Even the try was scored from a scrum moving backwards. A team can score points whilst being outplayed. Occassionally the poorer team will win a match.  Most times they will not. Over time teams get the results their play deserves. Wales are ranked sixth in the world which is about right.

I cannot see them moving significantly from sixth.  There are not queues of better players waiting in the wings. Even though people criticise Warrenball, Wales do not have a load of players capables of playing a different type of game.  England have a choice they could play Farrell, Barritt, Tuilagi or Ford, Eastmond, Joseph.  Clearly those back lines would play a different style.  Who is the alternative to Biggar, Roberts and Davies? If realistically there is not one then you need to play the game they are capable of playing. That is Warrenball.

You don't watch much welsh rugby then, or read many comments on here. There's no need to swap Biggar with an alternative. However he could do with some decent back-up and we would like to see Anscombe and Owen Williams. Inside Biggar is Webb, who's back-up should be Gareth Davies. In the backs JD2, North and Cuthbert should make way for Scott Williams, Liam Williams and Hallam Amos. So there I just gave you alternative capable of playing a different game, they're also the form players. Now we just need Gatland to pick them.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TJ wrote: Basically Warrenball has been sussed out.

Yet, should they manage to win the forward battle it could suddenly be effective again.

Firstly how likely are they to win the forward battle.  Are there a whole succession of alternative forwards that have not been tried? I do not think so.

If they win the forward battle it would tie in the opposition pack. It would then be a question of whether Jamie Roberts running very very slowly at the opposition midfield is going to break down their defence.  I cannot see it.  In the last few years the opposition have got bigger, fitter and are better drilled in defence.  

Really pedantic aren't you? But to answer your question again, yes. The significant changes would be 1, 2 and maybe in the back-row, though I'm not sure what combo we'd put out. The pack won't play that poorly again after they've had a game to get their feet on the ground. Plus Scotland aren't as strong.

4th in the 2011 six nations. 4th at the RWC 2011.

If we come better than 4th in this six nations we'll be better than fourth at the RWC.

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:Neitehr for me.  For me the issue is the predictable gameplan that has been used for so long the tactics to counter it are fairly obvious.  You know the welsh back 3 will kick long and infeild from their own half.  You know there will be a lot of crash ball from roberts.  so you canset your tactics to counter this.  Basically Warrenball has been sussed out.

Being a bit pedantic here, but 'Welsh back 3'?! Halfpenny maybe, but you don't see North or Cuthbert kicking. They can't! They're rubbish at it. Maybe they might try the odd chip over, but they don't do clearances kicks. Halfpenny kicks long and in field and the wings chase. If that scenario can't happen then halfpenny takes contact/slips over until it's recycled and it can be kicked long either by him or Biggar/Priestland (aka no plan B!).

But I suppose you could say that works sometimes - that's what lead to the scrum from which Wales scored their try.  Although I guess if you were being pedantic you could say the officials didn't spot that North was yards in front of Halfpenny when he kicked ahead but continued to chase before being put on side so it shouldn't have worked.

quinsforever wrote:wales record under gatland is 50%. so 44% in the last 18months is admittedly slightly worse, although that does include 2 AIs and only 1 6Ns. If you take it back another 6 months to the previous 6N which Wales won (although you would have to include the loss to Japan!) the percentage pops back up to around 50.

wales were never as great as some people would have had us believe. they are about as good as they were, in my opinion, but improvements at 9 and 10 have been offset by the change in scrum laws, and teams learning how to counter Gatball.

however they are clear underdogs to escape their pool unless they change style somehow, as england and australia look much more likely to score tries and hence secure bonus points.

And you think Gatland is predictable.

In the spirit of supporting your new approach of non controversial posts about Wales , try posting something about Welsh performance that

a) does not mention the % record
b) does not mention Japan
c) does not refer to Gatball

maestegmafia wrote:4th in the 2011 six nations. 4th at the RWC 2011.

If we come better than 4th in this six nations we'll be better than fourth at the RWC.

In 2011 your players were 4 years younger and your tactics 4 years fresher. If you posted that without irony. then I salute your faith but i fear you will be disappointed.

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:4th in the 2011 six nations. 4th at the RWC 2011.

If we come better than 4th in this six nations we'll be better than fourth at the RWC.

In 2011 your players were 4 years younger and your tactics 4 years fresher. If you posted that without irony. then I salute your faith but i fear you will be disappointed.

If Wales had employed any tactics rather thn just stood on the pitch we would have beaten England last Friday and would be sitting pretty today.

Wales problem last week was that in the second half they played naive rugby. They had no reason to do so. But the players made some stupid decisions. Shortened line outs was a big one.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TJ wrote: Basically Warrenball has been sussed out.

Yet, should they manage to win the forward battle it could suddenly be effective again.

Firstly how likely are they to win the forward battle.  Are there a whole succession of alternative forwards that have not been tried? I do not think so. 

Even without any changes there is a real possibility that they will win the "battle of the packs" with Scotland. You feel as if Scotland should have the edge at the lineout - but if Ross ford has one of his "oops I did it again" days that advantage could be lost. Murray has been put in the Team of the Round by many, but the match is on a Sunday. finally unless the entire Scottish team work as hard as England did at the breakdown to clear out Warburton et al then the Welsh backs will be getting front foot ball and the turnovers they crave.

Wales were not as poor as some would have you believe. Were Scotland really as good as many are claiming? If so then perhaps we should all be betting on a French GS.

Being sport, the best thing is we will find out this weekend.

Fact check:

The entire Welsh back 3 kicked the ball 3 times between them (not counting kicks at goal)

Good point Gooseberry.

Wales were overpowered up front in fact they lost nearly half of all their mauls,scrums & line outs.
England's forwards tackled like demons & Wales never had any platform.
Any team on the backfoot like that will struggle.

If your game relies on being the most physical, the most dominant upfront then that's where all your energies should revolve around.

Its therefore bizarre when Wales continue to choose Gethin over James, Ball over Charteris etc and haven't tried to develop Lee more. For a tighthead he's a little on the small side... and it shows.

He's young but if given no.3 is so vital its remarkable they have done little else bar give him game time and been willing to drop Adam into retirement so quickly... A. Jones didn't get bad overnight, he's struggled with the rule changes yes but to lose all that experience 9 months out from a RWC year is loco.

If that is where you base your entire future then its a house built on sand rather than rock.

You can't expect zero mistakes, you can't expect 100% lineout success, 0 missed tackles. It doesn't happen, to any team in any match so betting your house on the best case scenario is simply flawed logic. You need to set your game out so that in the worst case scenario, you're still competitive against all teams. That's what gets you to RWC finals, that's what wins you the trophy.. and lets be honest with 2 6N championships in 2012 and 2013 and dominating a victorious lions squad in 2013... that should be a legitimate goal.

maestegmafia wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:4th in the 2011 six nations. 4th at the RWC 2011.

If we come better than 4th in this six nations we'll be better than fourth at the RWC.

In 2011 your players were 4 years younger and your tactics 4 years fresher. If you posted that without irony. then I salute your faith but i fear you will be disappointed.

If Wales had employed any tactics rather thn just stood on the pitch we would have beaten England last Friday and would be sitting pretty today.
Wales problem last week was that in the second half they played naive rugby. They had no reason to do so. But the players made some stupid decisions. Shortened line outs was a big one.

wow. I guess teams like England are just lucky that Wales don't bother to run around, pass or tackle and stuff. Nothing like being gracious in defeat, is there?

If you have a hooker who Gatland in 2013 chose after Tom Youngs due to his superior Lineout throwing you know lineouts are going to be an issue. Therefore things like shortened lineouts etc are key... especially when you have no real dominant jumpers either.

Cyril wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:4th in the 2011 six nations. 4th at the RWC 2011.

If we come better than 4th in this six nations we'll be better than fourth at the RWC.

In 2011 your players were 4 years younger and your tactics 4 years fresher. If you posted that without irony. then I salute your faith but i fear you will be disappointed.

If Wales had employed any tactics rather thn just stood on the pitch we would have beaten England last Friday and would be sitting pretty today.
Wales problem last week was that in the second half they played naive rugby. They had no reason to do so. But the players made some stupid decisions. Shortened line outs was a big one.

wow. I guess teams like England are just lucky that Wales don't bother to run around, pass or tackle and stuff. Nothing like being gracious in defeat, is there?

Evidently they don't bother to run around and some don't bother to tackle. Don't see what the problem is? In fact I think we can expect more of the same from Wales on the weekend

Gooseberry wrote:Fact check:

The entire Welsh back 3 kicked the ball 3 times between them (not counting kicks at goal)

Because Cuthbert and North can't kick. This is why we need a back 3 of Williams, Amos and Halfpenny. Each are interchangable so you stick who you want at 15.

The Saint wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Fact check:

The entire Welsh back 3 kicked the ball 3 times between them (not counting kicks at goal)

Because Cuthbert and North can't kick. This is why we need a back 3 of Williams, Amos and Halfpenny. Each are interchangable so you stick who you want at 15.

I do like the idea of a back 3 with 2 players who can play full back, think its needed with the way the kicking game is, but I still think there's room for one pure strike runner like North at full form (see NZ with Dagg and Smith the full backs and Savea at wing)

If it was me I'd probably go with Halfpenny, North and Williams, but can see the argument for Amos too, looks like he could be a cracker

BamBam wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Fact check:

The entire Welsh back 3 kicked the ball 3 times between them (not counting kicks at goal)

Because Cuthbert and North can't kick. This is why we need a back 3 of Williams, Amos and Halfpenny. Each are interchangable so you stick who you want at 15.

I do like the idea of a back 3 with 2 players who can play full back, think its needed with the way the kicking game is, but I still think there's room for one pure strike runner like North at full form (see NZ with Dagg and Smith the full backs and Savea at wing)

If it was me I'd probably go with Halfpenny, North and Williams, but can see the argument for Amos too, looks like he could be a cracker

That's probably what we'll have going forward and it's a good back 3; but North and Halfpenny need to start playing better. Amos can cover all 3, or if good enough should start.

What they were doing instead was getting Biggar to drop back and cover the deep kicks on defence with Halfpenny, and one of the big chaps to step up into the line. A lot of the kicking Halfpenny has taken heat for was actually Biggar.

Still a good team, just one that is tired....tired from being over worked trained in the Gymby Gatland, they looked absolutely shagged in the last half on Friday and tired of the same coaching methods. No doubt still packed full of talent though.

Just can't see them turning it around for the world cup.

I think they CAN win 1 game in their pool stage vs. AUS or ENG but not both. That means they're going to have to face SA in the QFs at best. Even then I see a win as unlikely in both outcomes.

as in don't put your mortgage on it.

and then if they get through to that they will have to face NZ.

Heaf wrote:

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:Neitehr for me.  For me the issue is the predictable gameplan that has been used for so long the tactics to counter it are fairly obvious.  You know the welsh back 3 will kick long and infeild from their own half.  You know there will be a lot of crash ball from roberts.  so you canset your tactics to counter this.  Basically Warrenball has been sussed out.

Being a bit pedantic here, but 'Welsh back 3'?! Halfpenny maybe, but you don't see North or Cuthbert kicking. They can't! They're rubbish at it. Maybe they might try the odd chip over, but they don't do clearances kicks. Halfpenny kicks long and in field and the wings chase. If that scenario can't happen then halfpenny takes contact/slips over until it's recycled and it can be kicked long either by him or Biggar/Priestland (aka no plan B!).

But I suppose you could say that works sometimes - that's what lead to the scrum from which Wales scored their try.  Although I guess if you were being pedantic you could say the officials didn't spot that North was yards in front of Halfpenny when he kicked ahead but continued to chase before being put on side so it shouldn't have worked.

I think you've missed my point - TJ says we have a back 3 who kick long and infield. I'm saying only Halfpenny kicks. The other two chase or run with the ball. But they don't kick.