Wales bad team over night or fading star?

First topic message reminder :

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?

sirtidychris wrote:tired from being over worked trained in the Gymby Gatland,  

That reminds me, we still haven't the last instalment of The Hobbit

What's all the fuss? Wales hasn't won two games in a row since November 2013 when we triumphed over Argentina and the mighty Tongans. Since Gatland rarely selects anyone new, we can safely say that the core of our team only ever expect to win half the time. Over the last 6 years we've only won 50%.

The good news is that these players are world champions at re-grouping and "redeeming" themselves - so hard luck Scotland. The French should be optimistic as we'll be back to underachieving by the 28th.

Griff wrote:

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.

I stand corrected - but my point basically was you know if you kick long against Wales they will kick it back - not run it back. One of the things england did was run back long kicks and thus retain possession on the halfway line..

TJ wrote:

Griff wrote:

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.

I stand corrected - but my point basically was you know if you kick long against Wales they will kick it back - not run it back.  One of the things england did was run back long kicks and thus retain possession on the halfway line..

In the second half that was effective for them. In the first half they did that and we turned them over as we were good at the breakdown (or weren't getting pinged for 'not supporting weight', if you believe what many posters were saying at the time). Second half either england got better at the breakdown or we got worse. We got pinged more anyway.

But that's plan A. That's what has been (relatively) successful in the past. Team A kicks to us, we kick back, push up and try to turn them over as far away from our try line as possible. On another day we're better at the breakdown and we get much more of the territory and possession and perhpas win the game. And I guess this is why we yo yo so much - it's not a plan that works well if we don't win the 'collisions', as they say. England won the collisions in the second half and got the points that usually go with it. But I can guarantee that it will work again sometime soon. It's just a question of when! And against whom. Scotland?!

I Suppose I would like to ask the Welsh fans if they are happy with that win against Scotland on Sunday. No doubt you'll be happy with 2 points and be off the mark in the 6N, but being half Welsh myself I was a bit disappointed to see Gatland ball vindicated.

Had Wales lost it might have forced Gatland to seriously reevaluate his game plan, however it's unlikely we'll see that now.

Just looking for some Welsh input.

Rugger,

Given that even before the England game I thought we would slip up against Scotland I will take the win but that's about as good as it gets.

However I think the win papers over some very big cracks which I just don't feel are going to be addressed anytime soon.

Rugger, I hear this Gatlandball thing all the time but tell me how Scotland's play was any different? We used Roberts up the middle, you used Dunbar. We kicked it up high and in field (see Biggar incident, etc.) and so did you (see posts talking about your inability to compete with Halfpenny in the air). We tried to play tight and win the collisions, you tied to batter over for a try rather than put it through the hands. Finn did some chips over the top to vary the attack, and so did Biggar. We played some running rugby too (see Williams' break for Webb's try), you did some running rugby too (see break away try for Hogg).

I honestly can't tell a great deal of difference between the two approaches. Is Cotter-ball just Gatlandball Lite?!

I think Notch has it spot on.  My worry is that this coaching team isn't capable of moving us on to match developments, and that a fairly talented bunch of players is going to underachieve as a result.  The acid test is our record against SH teams, and that tells you clearly that the Gatland approach is okay for a reasonable 6N record, but not enough to beat really good teams (including Ireland and England when they are on their game).

What also gets me is that some of the problems that recur have been problems for a long time.  I've been watching Wales since the 70s, and we have almost never had a reliable lineout, apart from brief interludes with Chris Wyatt and Bob Norster.  There must be a reason for that, something is clearly wrong with the coaches if they can't produce a reasonably efficient lineout.

I think Gatland etc would happily sacrifice the six nations for a decent run in the world cup. It was mentioned before the 6 nations that Gatland was beasting the wales players with an eye on the world cup rather than the 6 nations. I wouldn't read too much into these performances.

Thats the same excuse Tigers use every year for their cr@p start to the Premiership season, they still end up doing badly in Europe.

mckay1402 wrote:I think Gatland etc would happily sacrifice the six nations for a decent run in the world cup.  It was mentioned before the 6 nations that Gatland was beasting the wales players with an eye on the world cup rather than the 6 nations. I wouldn't read too much into these performances.  

The rest of us are idiots who don't even know a World Cup is coming??

Saw this last week and its made me to angry.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/alex-cuthbert-phone-video-watch-8676926

To think a player would have the arrogance to do this to a fan is pathetic and not what this sport stands for. I've heard a lot about Cuthbert in the past about the way he is with the public but to actually see him go as far as this is disgusting.

I don't want him representing my country because not only is he the worst defensive international player i've seen (yes that includes ashton) but he is also a bad role model. I still very much doubt that much action will happen though and that we will see him in the red jersey in a weeks time.

Well........ the context isn't caught there, but I guess that's no excuse for the act of throwing the phone away.

Initially, you'd feel like going with the flow and suggesting Cuthbert handle himself better in these situations but I'd assume the video taker edited out anything that went before the throw?  It looks like a video piece that simply didn't start right as Cuthbert was launching the phone? It seems bluntly edited to start at that point.

Let the guy put up the whole video.  Let's see what was said to or done on Cuthbert to provoke that reaction.

They look like a group of smart-boys maybe in the mood to be insulting and lippy with a passing 'celeb'?

You'd like to think that you yourself wouldn't act like that under provocation and just walk away...but then, my personality wouldn't be too eager to just let an insult ride either.  Sometimes asswholes need more than a 'walk-away' reaction.

So I don't know, JHamer.  Initially I felt like you but then I got curious about why he's do such a thing.  So I'm on the fence now.

But he has never been of a professional manner with the public. One of my family member asked to have a picture with him in a night club but he responded in lifting up his top and shouted something and walked away (clearly drunk). I have heard other things as well so my opinion on him is that it probably wouldn't take much to aggravate him when he has had a few drinks. The video was taking on snap chat so that is the whole video sadly. It looks like the man was just going to get a photo, maybe he didn't ask, maybe he said something but to me this shines a bad light on him as a representative of the team.

Well yes, if it was unprovoked and the guys simply asked to take a picture or took a cheeky one behind his back...yes, massive over-reaction from him - and probably 'criminal' as the phone was private property damaged by him.

But I couldn't give a definitive opinion on that particular episode unless I knew what went on before hand and whether there was genuine provocation.

How is shedloads of fitness work in January going to give Wales the edge over the other nations in September???  It would be far better preparation to be establishing a well-functioning team and integrating potential deps in case of injuries, i.e. basically playing the tournament as if for its own sake, like the other teams, while maybe holding back a couple of moves they don't want to reveal yet.  If things continue like this, England and Ireland will get much more out of this 6N by way of prep for the WC than Wales will.  If this is a deliberate strategy, it is a misconceived one.

Alex Cuthbert is obviously not a happy bunny at the moment.  I can't really see why Wales fans would want to tip him over the edge into alienation and potentially lose a valuable player (try-scoring test Lion).

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

I think you summed them up perfectly in a single sentence.

Edit: and the "hard to put away" part obviously doesn't apply to a couple of teams...

Jhamer25 wrote:Saw this last week and its made me to angry.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/alex-cuthbert-phone-video-watch-8676926

To think a player would have the arrogance to do this to a fan is pathetic and not what this sport stands for. I've heard a lot about Cuthbert in the past about the way he is with the public but to actually see him go as far as this is disgusting.

I don't want him representing my country because not only is he the worst defensive international player i've seen (yes that includes ashton) but he is also a bad role model. I still very much doubt that much action will happen though and that we will see him in the red jersey in a weeks time.

Sadly some rugby players are transforming into footballers as their egos and profiles grow. I am sure there are plenty of examples of incidents not being reported.

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.

Sounds suspiciously like a Lancasterism. 3 winger/fullbacks, no specialists.

WELL-PAST-IT 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.

Sounds suspiciously like a Lancasterism. 3 winger/fullbacks, no specialists.

It's well before Lancaster's time. Graham Henry and then Steve Hansen brought that concept to Wales.

Griff wrote:Rugger, I hear this Gatlandball thing all the time but tell me how Scotland's play was any different? We used Roberts up the middle, you used Dunbar. We kicked it up high and in field (see Biggar incident, etc.) and so did you (see posts talking about your inability to compete with Halfpenny in the air). We tried to play tight and win the collisions, you tied to batter over for a try rather than put it through the hands. Finn did some chips over the top to vary the attack, and so did Biggar. We played some running rugby too (see Williams' break for Webb's try), you did some running rugby too (see break away try for Hogg).

I honestly can't tell a great deal of difference between the two approaches.  Is Cotter-ball just Gatlandball Lite?!

I wouldn't say so Griff. Scotland don't have big enough players to play that sort of rugby. What I'm getting at is that Wales have some elusive players at their disposal, Scott Williams for example. Halfpenny is a superb counter attacker but doesn't seem to do much of it.

It's not a dig, just from hearing Welsh fans after the game and some comments on here.

For me Wales were already declining in late 2013/2014.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Griff wrote:Rugger, I hear this Gatlandball thing all the time but tell me how Scotland's play was any different? We used Roberts up the middle, you used Dunbar. We kicked it up high and in field (see Biggar incident, etc.) and so did you (see posts talking about your inability to compete with Halfpenny in the air). We tried to play tight and win the collisions, you tied to batter over for a try rather than put it through the hands. Finn did some chips over the top to vary the attack, and so did Biggar. We played some running rugby too (see Williams' break for Webb's try), you did some running rugby too (see break away try for Hogg).

I honestly can't tell a great deal of difference between the two approaches.  Is Cotter-ball just Gatlandball Lite?!

I wouldn't say so Griff. Scotland don't have big enough players to play that sort of rugby. What I'm getting at is that Wales have some elusive players at their disposal,  Scott Williams for example.  Halfpenny is a superb counter attacker but doesn't seem to do much of it.

It's not a dig,  just from hearing Welsh fans after the game and some comments on here.

Hey Radge, I didn't take it as a dig! I Just see other teams playing similar ways and it is only us that gets lumped with this power game, Gatland Ball, no plan B, tag! All good teams try to do something similar - I.e. Earn the right to go wide by winning the gain line battle to draw in defenders and then exploit the overlap. Wales in the past never used to do this. We'd fling it about, drawing no defenders (do you remember our 'drift attack' where we'd sweep left to right and back again making do ground before being tackled into touch?!). Fun to watch but not good for winning games. Gatlands appraoch has changed this somewhat. When we've won the 6N under Gatland it's not like we've done so scoring hardly any tries. I would have to look back, but those three tournaments I'm sure we've been there are there abouts at the top of the try scoring table, so it's a bit of a myth I think that it's all about bush bash bosh, no running rugby and playing for penalties (TJs accusation). No doubt Gatlandball could be better, but then we're not the all blacks and Gatland has at his disposal the sort of players in teams that go out of Europe well before the quarters most years! So perhpas he's doing well with players of limited ability (as demonstrated by their club form)?

On Scott Williams, I wouldn't say he's that elusive. A bit more than Roberts maybe, but he's a bit of a bosh merchant too. The problem is that Williams is predominantly a 12 so to put him in his best positon means dropping Roberts, but at the moment it would be criminal to drop Roberts as he's playing so well. So he appears to be overlooked when in actual fact he's just got a top player in good form in front of him. We could put him to 13 (I've called for this with JD2 being out of form) but then that makes an even more 'Warrenball' backline with more ballast at centre. If I was going to make some changes it would be to put Williams to FB, drop Cuthbert and try Amos on one wing and 1/2p on the other. That's some decent ball playing, running back 3. I'm basing that on North being out. If he's fine though then of course he comes back so Amos misses out I guess. He needs to step up though (North).

Dont forget that when they were both at the Scarlets JD and Williams played 12 and 13. Davies only moved to 13 with Wales and when he paired up with Roberts

mckay1402 wrote:I think Gatland etc would happily sacrifice the six nations for a decent run in the world cup.  It was mentioned before the 6 nations that Gatland was beasting the wales players with an eye on the world cup rather than the 6 nations. I wouldn't read too much into these performances.  

I understand that and I think we would all sacrifice a 6 Nations for another Semi or even Final place at the WC but for me winning breeds confidence and going into the WC on the back of a 6 Nations championship would surely have far more benefits than going in on the back of a poor tournament.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:I think Gatland etc would happily sacrifice the six nations for a decent run in the world cup.  It was mentioned before the 6 nations that Gatland was beasting the wales players with an eye on the world cup rather than the 6 nations. I wouldn't read too much into these performances.  

I understand that and I think we would all sacrifice a 6 Nations for another Semi or even Final place at the WC but for me winning breeds confidence and going into the WC on the back of a 6 Nations championship would surely have far more benefits than going in on the back of a poor tournament.

We all read that but it's a very poor decision to make. Teams like Ireland will be much better prepared for the RWC with a winning streak.

Wales have been a very well conditioned team, and it has given them an edge in the past. This time around, this far out from the RWC it feels more that this is psychological than physical, as in trying to convince the players that they have a physical edge over their opponents because they have worked harder.

England, come world cup time, will be perhaps best conditioned of all.  It's their world cup, they have a lot of scientific expertise rolling into it, they'll have their high tech bases and Olympic experienced employees.  They'll leave no stone unturned to give themselves the best chance.  Even now, their conditioning levels look impressive.

Wales too will do what everyone now expects of them under Gatland and show up at the WC in top physical condition.  But sometimes it perhaps seems maybe too intense at times and the players have often had issues with knees and other areas when in Gatland camp too long - injuries happening not due to gameplay but perhaps too much intensity in the gym.
But they'll certainly be ready to do full 80 minute games at impressive tempos - that's what we've come to expect from Wales and Gatland will have them there again.

Ireland are in a very iffy place conditioning-wise right now. It's hard to work out if they're holding back or whether their form-building towards a world cup has even started yet.  The Provincial performances to date this year have been patchy and quite, quite ordinary.  And it's not just the losing of games, it's the very questionable levels of physicality and pace they've been bringing to games.  It just hasn't really existed up to this point.  And even now at International - it's all very sluggish stuff.
So with a new fitness and conditioning coach coming in last year and a new performance director, it's hard to work out what Ireland are at.  The players are all either in a combined form dip or they are being developed slowly through the year to be in peak condition later.  Hard to know which.

The Saint wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:I think Gatland etc would happily sacrifice the six nations for a decent run in the world cup.  It was mentioned before the 6 nations that Gatland was beasting the wales players with an eye on the world cup rather than the 6 nations. I wouldn't read too much into these performances.  

I understand that and I think we would all sacrifice a 6 Nations for another Semi or even Final place at the WC but for me winning breeds confidence and going into the WC on the back of a 6 Nations championship would surely have far more benefits than going in on the back of a poor tournament.

We all read that but it's a very poor decision to make. Teams like Ireland will be much better prepared for the RWC with a winning streak.

Couldn't agree more, short term sacrifice long term goal etc is ok in certain aspects but winning breeds confidence and any of the top teams going into the WC on the back of a good solid winning streak will be in better shape than others.

Surprise Wales' fitness and conditioning has been talked up - I think Wales used to be one of the fittest teams but in the last few games I am not so sure.

IMO the Welsh players looked knackered after playing New Zealand. - looked like they gave their all for 70 minutes but couldn't deal with NZ's salvos.

Against England they didn't seem to have much left in the tank - there was no feeling they had another gear. As for the Scotland game - great defence in the latter stages of the game but Scotland were all over them and should have really won that match.

Summary - I would say Wales have to rediscover the edge they used to have in fitness and conditioning.

beshocked wrote:.

Summary - I would say Wales have to rediscover the edge they used to have in fitness and conditioning.

They won't discover the edge....because England now have it But they will be more resilient come the World Cup or Gat's name ain't Gats.

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:.

Summary - I would say Wales have to rediscover the edge they used to have in fitness and conditioning.

They won't discover the edge....because England now have it  But they will be more resilient come the World Cup or Gat's name ain't Gats.

The 'Great Gats.'

Here's a poser for  Welsh fans -

Gats signed a contract which takes him through to the 2019 WC & this was signed post successful Lions tour 2013.
Given the focus he himself has given to this years WC. If Wales failed to make it out of the group (a possibility for sure) and there is no distinct change in gameplan ( a probability IMO) should that be in the majority of Welsh fans eyes a resigning issue?

I think Gatland will go soon after the world cup regardless of winning, coming close or losing out big time.

I think Gatland is smart enough at the business end of his job behind the scenes as much as he is good at the coaching bit.  I think he'll have a few get-out clauses in the 2019 contract and I think he'll use one of them maybe a year after the WC.
I think at that point he'll have done all he can with Wales (the natural journey's end) and they'll mutually look for new pastures.

Intrestingly, what with Gats stock starting to fall I would imagine that he next Lions coach is up for grabs. Hopefully a CURRENT international coach is not considered.

SecretFly wrote:England, come world cup time, will be perhaps best conditioned of all.  It's their world cup, they have a lot of scientific expertise rolling into it, they'll have their high tech bases and Olympic experienced employees.  They'll leave no stone unturned to give themselves the best chance.  Even now, their conditioning levels look impressive.

Wales too will do what everyone now expects of them under Gatland and show up at the WC in top physical condition.  But sometimes it perhaps seems maybe too intense at times and the players have often had issues with knees and other areas when in Gatland camp too long - injuries happening not due to gameplay but perhaps too much intensity in the gym.
But they'll certainly be ready to do full 80 minute games at impressive tempos - that's what we've come to expect from Wales and Gatland will have them there again.

Ireland are in a very iffy place conditioning-wise right now. It's hard to work out if they're holding back or whether their form-building towards a world cup has even started yet.  The Provincial performances to date this year have been patchy and quite, quite ordinary.  And it's not just the losing of games, it's the very questionable levels of physicality and pace they've been bringing to games.  It just hasn't really existed up to this point.  And even now at International - it's all very sluggish stuff.
So with a new fitness and conditioning coach coming in last year and a new performance director, it's hard to work out what Ireland are at.  The players are all either in a combined form dip or they are being developed slowly through the year to be in peak condition later.  Hard to know which.

Good analysis, Fly. I'd broadly agree - though I think the main things England are doing are centred on using data to tailor training. For instance they are looking at when to stop a player training because they are at risk of injury.

I've long thought that Gatland is brilliant at bringing his players to a peak of fitness in time for tournaments - but that he sets that peak so high that injuries become more common. With a young squad last RWC, I think he surprised everyone with how well they could play late in the game. With a stable squad now 4 years older, I think that his players are more likely to break down (without the depth to replace them), and that other countries, particularly the ABs and now it looks like England, have moved the bar on.

Strange and not a little sad to hear about Ireland. I thought central contracts made conditioning much easier to manage - which I guess tilts me towards believing that they are working through a change in regime and will improve come the RWC. And a rest from ERCC rugby might be what some of the older players need... (ducks for cover)

I don't actually think the 6 Nations has been bad for Wales so far. Psychologically they and England both know that Wales didn't turn up really and they still only just lost. It seems pretty obvious that Gatland is more concerned about the world cup than the 6 Nations and I think Wales are in a decent place for it.

Poorfour wrote:

Strange and not a little sad to hear about Ireland. I thought central contracts made conditioning much easier to manage - which I guess tilts me towards believing that they are working through a change in regime and will improve come the RWC. And a rest from ERCC rugby might be what some of the older players need... (ducks for cover)

NOT a million miles away from the truth there, Poorfour.  That's what I was kinda alluding to.  

You can't say the Irish Provinces don't know the intensity needed to even compete in HEC/ERCC. So the lack of that intensity from many players this season - in both contests really (Pro12 and ERCC) - suggest to me that realism was being taken into account in terms of a realistic assault on our WC pool.  

And that realism says we have a certain number of 'needed' players and then a good handful of pretty damn important filler in guys.  So I think, this season, the priorities were outlined in advance.  We don't have enough resources to chase after club titles, 6N and WC in the one season.... so choices have been made (in my opinion).  Saving the true form building for as late in the club season as possible.

mckay1402 wrote:I don't actually think the 6 Nations has been bad for Wales so far.  Psychologically they and England both know that Wales didn't turn up really and they still only just lost.  It seems pretty obvious that Gatland is more concerned about the world cup than the 6 Nations and I think Wales are in a decent place for it.  

They only just lost on the scoreboard, but were nilled in the 2nd half and never looked like scoring outside of the first 10 minutes. They were better at the breakdown 1st half overall but there is little else to take comfort from. They manufactured more chances last year vs England when they lost by a greater margin.

Scotland/Wales was a close game because both teams had good chances to win it, and Wales won because they were much more clinical with their chances.

lostinwales wrote:

Scotland/Wales was a close game because both teams had good chances to win it, and Wales won because they were much more clinical with their chances.

And Scotland played the game at Welsh tempo.  Wales bullied the tempo into being actually and loosened up Scottish defences as a predicted result.  Scotland don't yet have the solid confidence in their systems (defensive ones most especially) to play the game at that tempo against a side pretty used to it in Gatland's Wales. They got tricked into playing an impatient game.

As has been mentioned I think Gatland will go not long after the WC. If we crash out at group stages then it would be very hard to justify keeping him but if we have a good run, semi or better then he will be in demand back home.

As for the Lions coach well then I don't think he is in pole position but I hope it's not a current coach as whoever it is there will always be some kind of National bias.

Let me be the third guy in about as many posts who says I don't want a National coach being siphoned off by the Lions.

Things have become far too professional and serious both at club and International, and it's much too much to ask a National side to go months without their preferred (and paid for) coach so that a Lions side can have 2 months of glory - or otherwise - every four years.

That was all okay in the amateur days but the world has changed.  The National coach is needed to keep the National side developing, and preparing the groundwork for all Nation competitions - summer tours (important!) - autumn series (important), 6N(essential), and those four yearly WCs (more important than Lions tours)

lostinwales wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:I don't actually think the 6 Nations has been bad for Wales so far.  Psychologically they and England both know that Wales didn't turn up really and they still only just lost.  It seems pretty obvious that Gatland is more concerned about the world cup than the 6 Nations and I think Wales are in a decent place for it.  

They only just lost on the scoreboard, but were nilled in the 2nd half and never looked like scoring outside of the first 10 minutes. They were better at the breakdown 1st half overall but there is little else to take comfort from. They manufactured more chances last year vs England when they lost by a greater margin.

Scotland/Wales was a close game because both teams had good chances to win it, and Wales won because they were much more clinical with their chances.

Absolutely agree. Also the scoreline could have been far greater if Haskell hadn't run into the post and if an England try wasn't unfairly disallowed for "obstruction". Oh and the game was in Wales.

Wales didn't seem to have another gear against either England or Scotland though a lot of credit must be given for managing to absorb a lot of pressure in the 2nd half of each match - it was enough vs Scotland but against England they didn't offer enough.

beshocked wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:I don't actually think the 6 Nations has been bad for Wales so far.  Psychologically they and England both know that Wales didn't turn up really and they still only just lost.  It seems pretty obvious that Gatland is more concerned about the world cup than the 6 Nations and I think Wales are in a decent place for it.  

They only just lost on the scoreboard, but were nilled in the 2nd half and never looked like scoring outside of the first 10 minutes. They were better at the breakdown 1st half overall but there is little else to take comfort from. They manufactured more chances last year vs England when they lost by a greater margin.

Scotland/Wales was a close game because both teams had good chances to win it, and Wales won because they were much more clinical with their chances.

Absolutely agree. Also the scoreline could have been far greater if Haskell hadn't run into the post and if an England try wasn't unfairly disallowed for "obstruction". Oh and the game was in Wales.

Wales didn't seem to have another gear against either England or Scotland though a lot of credit must be given for managing to absorb a lot of pressure in the 2nd half of each match - it was enough vs Scotland but against England they didn't offer enough.

By that sentiment the scoreline could have been less to England too if North had grabbed Joseph's shirt rather than grabbing air! But that would be ridiculous. My point: you can't guess a different outcome based on ifs and buts! You sound like a Welsh fan!

mckay1402 wrote:I don't actually think the 6 Nations has been bad for Wales so far.  Psychologically they and England both know that Wales didn't turn up really and they still only just lost.  It seems pretty obvious that Gatland is more concerned about the world cup than the 6 Nations and I think Wales are in a decent place for it.  

That is extremely disrespectful. A few posters now have suggested that Wales lost the game rather than England actually winning it.

LondonTiger wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:I don't actually think the 6 Nations has been bad for Wales so far.  Psychologically they and England both know that Wales didn't turn up really and they still only just lost.  It seems pretty obvious that Gatland is more concerned about the world cup than the 6 Nations and I think Wales are in a decent place for it.  

That is extremely disrespectful. A few posters now have suggested that Wales lost the game rather than England actually winning it.

This is a Wales thread. Stop trying to make it all about England...

beshocked wrote:
Absolutely agree. Also the scoreline could have been far greater if Haskell hadn't run into the post and if an England try wasn't unfairly disallowed for "obstruction". Oh and the game was in Wales.

And not forgetting the Wales try that was unfairly allowed after playing the ball in the scrum.

Lost a close match to England by 5 points beat Scotland away. Played P8ss poor in both games but hardly all doom and gloom. Dreamers and WUM's make of it what you will.
Certainly agree that Wales lost the game rather that England winning it after all isn't that the way when the scores are reversed.... well unless there's 27 points in it.

beshocked wrote: a lot of credit must be given for managing to absorb a lot

Yep lets credit Wales with being as good as  disposable nappies and lady pant liners.
To be fair England and Scotland did urine on them for long periods without them leaking too much. Not sure how theyd stand up to a solid all black pooing though.


(If I put this isnt meant to be a WUM/offensive does that make it OK?)

Concern is Wales success has been built on an unusually (for Wales)  powerful pack, allowing half-backs to ship front-foot ball to big, fast, highly-conditioned three quarters.  Now advantages of power and fitness are fading, set-piece is creaking, we're getting out-muscled and out-mauled.  Good thing Richie Gray went off early, as he was a handful.

We can no longer rely on power plays stemming from ownership of the heaviest pack in the NH, which was anyway an aberrant and temporary state of affairs. Again, unusually for Wales, we have lacked guile at half-back for quite some time  and, with Shane gone, have no unpredictability / X factor on the wing. Players seem mentally stale and unable to think strategically  on the park.  Talking of which, why on earth didn't Halfpenny  take that shot at goal towards the end of the match? Instead we kicked for the corner and in the blink of an eye Scotland nearly scored at the other end (the Webb "high tackle" incident).

Situation cries out for a new game-plan, using more creativity and  footballing intelligence, probably with new blood in the line-up.  

That will be the way ahead after Gatland goes  and he may well be gone by this time next year.