Welsh World Cup Squad

First topic message reminder :

Dragons not playing until tomorrow and quiet on here so just wondered what early thoughts are on the Welsh WC squad.  I think a lot of it will pick itself unless injury or shock retirements dictate.  I have gone with a 30 man squad 16/14 forwards/back split same as last world cup so here's my thought.

Here's the 47 man Training Squad, Players in bold are the ones I think are already inked in:

Props (5) JENKINS,JAMES,LEE, Evans, Francis, Jarvis, Andrews
Hookers (3) BALDWIN,OWENS, Dacey
2 Row (3) AWJ, CHARTERIS, Ball, Davies, Day
Backrow (5) FALETAU, WARBURTON, LYDIATE, TIPURIC,Moriarty, King

No9s (3) WEBB, Davies, Ll Williams
No10s (3) BIGGAR, PRIESTLAND, Anscombe, Morgan
Centres (3) ROBERTS, Sc WILLIAMS, Morgan, Allen
Back 3 (5) NORTH, HALFPENNY, Li WILLIAMS, Cuthbert, Walker, Amos, James (Then 2 from Cuthbert, Amos, Walker) For me Cuthbert and Amos

As I said the ones in Bold are the ones I feel are already pencilled in to go. Updated squad as we stand now

Gwlad wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Gwlad wrote:
Home advantage will tell in the fiji game

Which is a shame, if not a disgrace. I remember tournament organisers saying Australia wouldn't be playing their game against Wales at the Millennium Stadium, the implication being that it was okay for Fiji and Uruguay to have to play a group rival at their home ground because they're 'lesser nations'. It's just wrong. It's not our World Cup. Only the hosts should have home advantage.

Disgrace? what rubbish.

Home advantage and the advantage of a minimum of 6 days between fixtures. RWC is not a level playing field and since England can't provide the rugby experience that you get at the Millennium it would be a travesty not to have it involved. Clearly the IRB and participant unions have had no issue with it.

Of course the ARU would have kicked off if their group game against Wales had been scheduled to be played in Cardiff - which is why it wasn't. You can bet Fiji weren't happy that theirs was, but their voice doesn't count for much in world rugby and will have been easier for the tournament organisers to ignore.

Aus kicked off an point blank refused to play Wales at the MS if I remember correctly.

No press reports of Fiji or uruguay objecting are there?

Maybe they knew there was no point complaining.

beshocked wrote:

Oh and let's be honest he's still probably the 2nd best fly half Wales have......

Of course he is. In Wales, there are alot of people who don't watch much rugby, but claim to be rugby fans. Therefore they don't understand the game but feel they have a right to a voice on all matters welsh rugby. So what happens when Wales don't do so well is they blame the outside half. It happenned with Stephen Jones too. He was playing out of his skin, yet got the blame for defeats. Same happenned with Priestland. I have no doubt Biggar hit good form and is the better option, but Priestland can do a 8/10 performance and do all that his coaches ask of him, yet get the blame for a poor performance.

That's why the coaches always pick him. The Welsh public can think what they want. But the coaches know he's still quality.

Biggar used to get plenty of stick in a Wales shirt himself.

Yup. Blame the 10. Must be his fault.

Love the way the rugby loving public knows nothing but your the height of knowledge there...

There is so much arrogance in rugby it is crazy, no wonder it struggles!

Am pretty sure Gatland doesn't give a flying feck what we all think on here but I would like to know what he sees in Andrews that we are all missing.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Am pretty sure Gatland doesn't give a flying feck what we all think on here but I would like to know what he sees in Andrews that we are all missing.

He's not injured ?

munkian wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Am pretty sure Gatland doesn't give a flying feck what we all think on here but I would like to know what he sees in Andrews that we are all missing.

He's not injured ?

?

beshocked wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I'm not. Okay I might be a little biased, but it's only fans that support the Scarlets who strongly disagree with me on this. From experience the supporters from West of Cardiff are insanely biased. How many minutes did he get in the last 6 Nations? I only guessed when I said 20, it's probably less...

So because he played second fiddle in the 6N to Dan Biggar he's rubbish? I'm really not getting your logic here. Presumably Justin Tipuric and Scott Williams are rubbish too?

I think Bath have a lot of money so can pretty much sign anyone they want. RP must be laughing if he's on £300,000 to play second fiddle. Isn't that the standard cost for an international down at The Rec? Good luck to him there anyway.

If they can sign anyone they want, why would they sign Rhys "sh1tty" Priestland?

Priestland did afterall lead Wales to their best ever RWC finish in 2011. Helped Wales win a GS in 2012.

He is a world cup and GS hero

Perhaps Bath are hoping they can help Priestland rediscover that form. Also I expect they are hoping that Priestland's international career will be over after the RWC so he will be available them all year.

Someone needs to be fly half cover for Ford. Oh and let's be honest he's still probably the 2nd best fly half Wales have......

Second best

Chunky Norwich wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Oh and let's be honest he's still probably the 2nd best fly half Wales have......

Of course he is. In Wales, there are alot of people who don't watch much rugby, but claim to be rugby fans. Therefore they don't understand the game but feel they have a right to a voice on all matters welsh rugby. So what happens when Wales don't do so well is they blame the outside half. It happenned with Stephen Jones too. He was playing out of his skin, yet got the blame for defeats. Same happenned with Priestland.  I have no doubt Biggar hit good form and is the better option, but Priestland can do a 8/10 performance and do all that his coaches ask of him, yet get the blame for a poor performance.

That's why the coaches always pick him. The Welsh public can think what they want. But the coaches know he's still quality.

Is it that people who do not share your view on Priestland are dismissed as people who don't watch much rugby? Take me for instance, I watch it a lot. That's every international game and most Welsh Pro12 games that are aired. Based on all I've seen I don't rate Priestland and I don't believe his sublime 2011 form can ever return. Does that make me one of those fans who don't watch much rugby? He probably is the second best 10 in Wales, that I never disputed. Somebody seemed to suggest that he hadn't had a poor game in the last two years when in reality you can cherry pick a lot of games during that time where he ranged from average to disaster. 8/10? I'd say 6 and even that is being overly generous.

Priestland had a decent RWC 2011 but has done nothing since and because he is Gatland's Man he remains in contention until Anscombe/A N Other shows his worth.

He has almost patented the Slow-ball-hesitation-step-inside-get-isolated-lose-possession AND most impressively, the setpiece-clearance-kick-in-our-22-charged-down

His 2011 form suited our style perfectly but since then he has suffered a huge dip in form aligned with lack of confidence (which wasn't helped by continued selection) and a few injuries.

He showed some decent form last season, certainly more than Anscombe and maybe the move out of the proverbial goldfish bowl will help him.

As for the Welsh set then after Biggar I think it's a gamble whoever we pick and am not overly confident with any of them.

Priestland distribution is good and when in form he takes the ball flat and up to he line, giving Roberts and Co more space and time to pick a line or angle.

His weakness has been his kicking both out of hand and from the tee. In 2011 the kicking game, kicking to regain possession, wasn't as prominent to how we played.

Interestingly Biggar used to just be an excellent kicker but has adated his aim and now takes the ball to the line which is why he is number one.

Hook, while mercurial is too lateral in his movement. He has improved with Gloucester second half of the season but remains to be seen whether he has improved enough

Difficult to judge Anscombe from what I have seen

The problem with Priestland is his inconsistency. That inconsistency must be more frustrating to him than it is to anybody else. The impression I get is that he's one of those players who's at his best when he plays on instinct, and who can get bogged down if he overthinks things. I think it was overthinking that caused him so many problems when he was getting selected even though he was out of form (as he admitted himself).

It's untrue to say he hasn't done anything since 2011. We won the Grand Slam in 2012 with Priestland at outside half: he was excellent against Ireland in Dublin and his kicking out of hand against France in the last match was as good as I've seen. He's also played some blinders in Europe for the Scarlets, most notably when they beat Harlequins at the Stoop.

I'd have more confidence in Priestland coming on than I would in Hook.

I'd prefer him to Hook too - he still has every chance of regaining form.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Is it that people who do not share your view on Priestland are dismissed as people who don't watch much rugby? Take me for instance, I watch it a lot. That's every international game and most Welsh Pro12 games that are aired. Based on all I've seen I don't rate Priestland and I don't believe his sublime 2011 form can ever return. Does that make me one of those fans who don't watch much rugby? He probably is the second best 10 in Wales, that I never disputed. Somebody seemed to suggest that he hadn't had a poor game in the last two years when in reality you can cherry pick a lot of games during that time where he ranged from average to disaster. 8/10? I'd say 6 and even that is being overly generous.

I have no idea how much rugby you watch. But you cearly have a biased, inaccurate, ill informed opinion of a player. And have just written the rest of his entire career off via the medium of time travel, so forgive me if I don't give your rantings a grain of credibility.

Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

Chunky Norwich wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Is it that people who do not share your view on Priestland are dismissed as people who don't watch much rugby? Take me for instance, I watch it a lot. That's every international game and most Welsh Pro12 games that are aired. Based on all I've seen I don't rate Priestland and I don't believe his sublime 2011 form can ever return. Does that make me one of those fans who don't watch much rugby? He probably is the second best 10 in Wales, that I never disputed. Somebody seemed to suggest that he hadn't had a poor game in the last two years when in reality you can cherry pick a lot of games during that time where he ranged from average to disaster. 8/10? I'd say 6 and even that is being overly generous.

I have no idea how much rugby you watch. But you cearly have a biased, inaccurate, ill informed opinion of a player. And have just written the rest of his entire career off via the medium of time travel, so forgive me if I don't give your rantings a grain of credibility.

But that's only your opinion of my opinion on RP - the criteria being the last two years as brought up by somebody else. From past discussion and run-ins with other fans it only tends to be Scarlets that strongly disagree with me, with their posts being very defensive. It is admirable to an extent how you're fully supportive of your boys. But in some instances, like this one, it inhibits your perceptions. Maybe we should have said this many comments ago, but let's just agree to disagree?

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

Like Jonny Wilkinson?

beshocked wrote:
Not sure I would call Gatland's Wales lacking mentally or physically. 3 GSs suggest that Wales do have a lot of belief against NH sides but Wales have been slow starters in the 6 nations. That's something that is undeniable.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. They bottle it against the SANZAR nations, understandably, but then also find it difficult to play against teams like Fiji or Argentina who they perhaps should beat when they come to Wales with a scratch side that hasn't had nearly the same preparation as Wales have. But they don't beat them, because there's something lacking in the spirit and mentality of the squad, and that is their inability to really bully and dominate teams on a regular basis, without being the underdog. 3 Six Nations titles under Gatland, but how many missed opportunities against the Southern Hemisphere teams? They've bottled winning positions far more frequently than any other top 15 Nation in Test Rugby in the last five years.

beshocked wrote:Wales' biggest issues are still the strength in depth and the lack of real tactical nous from Gatland in my opinion.

That is nonsense I'm afraid. Gatland has shown himself to be one of the most tactically astute coaches in the world: it's not pretty, but it's pragmatic. He's massively improved the weaknesses in Wales' game; namely, the forwards and their physicality. Add in the focus on defence, fitness, and the breakdown that has happened since 08, and you start seeing the long term progress this Welsh side has made. Wales had one of the most desctructive scums in rugby for roughly two seasons, and now that dominance has gone, the shift of focus has gone on the previously inconsistent lineout, which has really become a feature of strength. The team performs to a slightly dogmatic ritual at times, it especially did between 2009-11, where it didn't work and once they'd gone down a blind corridor they'd throw the ball to Shane and hope for the best, and the latter part of 2013 into 2014, but Wales' strength often comes through the fact that the gameplan is simple. They don't overcomplicate things.

If you think Gatland and the coaching staff aren't doing very thorough and individual research on each opponent they face, you're naive to think so. If, however, you think he's lacking in tactical nous due to the fact Wales haven't spread the ball wide enough in the last two seasons, then that's just immaterial. I believe that, once the Lions Tour ended, Gatland's focus was straight onto the World Cup. Professionalism is a results business, and he's done pretty well with- and we have to be honest here- a team and country that should be applauded for being more successful than both England and France, and on a par with Ireland, in the last seven years.

beshocked wrote:Wales managed to go toe-to toe with NZ last autumn for 70 minutes but were blown away because the starters were out on their feet puffing and panting. Strong bench might have pushed NZ further.

That game was nowhere near as close as the scoreline and the pundits suggested it was. Wales were playing a very tight game against the All Blacks, understandably, and offered very little in attack. NZ seemed very composed, it always felt like it was a matter of time before they stepped up a gear. The fact they went on the score a few shows how taut the team was; stretched just that little bit further, and the team snapped completely. The gulf wasn't as big as the final scoreline, but Wales were also never as close as the 1 point margin fifteen minutes from the end suggested. Also ties into the mentality; England and South Africa would very rarely concede in that manner. Their heads don't drop and they don't lose their collective discipline and focus in the same way. Don't disagree about the strength in depth though, but then there is no obvious answer to this; if the replacements aren't good enough, you cannot blame the coach. Wales were never going to win that by injecting pace into the game. They needed to tough it out and hope for mistakes from the opposition, as happened a week later against South Africa, which in my opinion was a pretty fortuitous win. Bringing on replacements can be really disruptive to a team, especially if they have/need to develop a siege mentality.

beshocked wrote:Wales were leading England in the 6 nations at half time but didn't really threaten England through the next 40. Wales didn't seem to have any answer and Gatland had to take responsibility for that. Again a strong bench or some tactical change from Wales might have made a difference.

This one is slightly trickier. I may well have fallen for the media management of Gatland, but I cannot help viewing that game- and this whole season- without taking into account the Rugby World Cup. Wales were fairly dominant against England in the first half. They certainly dominated the tackle area, their own ball was very clean and quick, England's was always slowed down (perhaps illegally, go back and see how many hands are thrown into rucks just to gain that extra second). They also blitzed England's kicking game, charging down the half backs. Either it was naivety on the coaching staff to expect Wales to keep that intensity for at least the first 20 minutes of the second half, hoping they'd build and insurmountable score and roll to victory. Or, it was poor execution from the players, in not performing to the same standards as the first half, or implementing whatever half time changes had been made. Perhaps, however, Gatland was holding something back for the group game, drawing England onto them. If so, it would be a huge, huge psychological risk, as England are one win away from claiming they have a winning streak over Wales. But I can't help feel that Gatland won't have been too displeased with the result, having presumably seen what England can throw at Wales. Also, credit has to go to England, who probably put in their best performance all season against us in that second 40. Let's not forget, there is very little difference in ability between England, Ireland, and Wales, they're all very potent teams in their different ways.

mikey_dragon wrote:Your long-winded and presumptuous posts are not going to change my view of that and I assume that is the same for most rugby fans apart from those who are Scarlet (Assuming you're one of those too). I find your posts a bit defensive if I'm honest and in this instance it really isn't necessary.

Hi Mikey, I think you've misinterpreted what I said. I was merely disagreeing with you, not attacking you personally or doubting your knowledge or whatever. However, it's unfortunate that you're labeling me with the very things that you yourself are displaying. Don't see the need for that, think it's best to leave that sort of tone out of it. This is all just an academic discussion after all.  

mikey_dragon wrote:At the time I particularly singled out both 9 and 10 as it was the worst half-back performance I had ever seen.

Luckily, the full game is on youtube or vimeo, can't remember which, but as I watched it again some time in the last few months, it should still be there. Give it a watch. It might be useful to refresh your memory. Yeah, he threw an intercept for a try, but then that was just the cherry on top of a dire forward performance. I've seen far worse performances from half backs for Wales since Gatland took charge. Hook in the 2011 6N in Paris tops it. This doesn't mean that Priestland gets no criticism, but just as Biggar should not be chastised for doing the exact same thing against Samoa in 2009, you have to take the circumstances and context of these mistakes into account.

mikey_dragon wrote:I mentioned the booing because it's an extreme rarity that fans boo their own, which to me said that a lot of fans are of the same view on Priestland.

Perhaps so, but it was almost pantomime. You cannot discount my previous points about the aura and prestige the outside half position is held in in Wales. You also should not dismiss the fact that the voice of the collective in the Millennium Stadium is not necessarily a good gauge of the truth, nor are some Wales fans even when they are not intoxicated or hyped up from the match atmosphere. Let's not forget the absolute assassination Ryan Jones was given between 2008-2010 when he was captain, from fans and media alike (I'm not going to separate those, as I stated in my previous post, because the latter often leads the less informed members of the former). Discounting Ryan's ability as captain, he really wasn't playing particularly poorly. He was simultaneously being asked to bulk up which hindered his dynamism and ball carrying significantly, whilst Gatland also seemed to be formulating plans for him to play in the second row (Andy Powell was apparently his preferred choice between his admittedly incredible debut in 2008, and the golf buggy incident/loss of form in the 09-10 season). We all saw how good a player he was in the 2012 and 2013 6N campaigns at blindside, and he is often forgotten or overlooked due to the Lyd-Fal-War axis, despite the role he played as a starting player in those two years. It's often worth taking a more long term view on some players rather than swaying with the winds of public opinion.

The point is this: when Wales are playing poorly or don't win, rather than actually assess the loss rationally and correctly, the lazy and ignorant will look for a scapegoat. The fans booing Priestland are just that. He has his weaknesses, undoubtedly, but he deserved it no more for missing penalty kicks to the corner than Hibbard did when butchering an attacking throw ten metres from the opposition try line, or Roberts not making a pass when an overlap is on. Ultimately, he's still a good option for Wales to have, and to suggest Hook, Anscombe, and Morgan are better choices is a really strange claim to make. Hook has been wildly inconsistent, he's put kicks out on the full and been far less effective at bringing the backline into the game than Priestland has off the bench since Biggar has become first choice (again, though, we take Hook's inconsistency as part of the context it is in: this doesn't make Hook a bad player, just not currently a good choice for Wales at 10 when there are better options there). Anscombe is a relative unknown, but it feels like after a difficult first season in the Northern Hemisphere- where just about every aspect of his game seemed to be wobbly at some point- it will probably be in his second season where he will shine. Morgan is considered too flaky for the tough games in the English Championship. In any case- as I said earlier, and as Gatland's team selection seems to indicate- I'd see him as back three cover rather than the five eighth that he evidently wants to be.


Also, it disappoints me you do not like my writing style, but there we go.

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

No he isn't. Not sure where you were in Wales but quite evidently you were very lost.

I thought I'd left you a pretty reasonable response above in the hope that we could calm the waters, but having just gone through the rest of the thread, it seems like you're actually just enjoying stirring people up over Priestland. So, let's take a look at what you've said:

mikey_dragon wrote:I've watched Priestland throughout his career. That is every single Wales game and the majority of Scarlets matches that are aired on TV. This has allowed me to form an opinion on how good or bad I rate him at fly-half.

mikey_dragon wrote:Because over the last 2 years, I haven't seen a performance from either Hook or Priestland at any level that warrants their international selection.

These statements are in direct contradiction of each other, as Priestland has put in a number of fine performances for the Scarlets, with his usually high levels of distribution and kicking from hand paired with improved goal kicking. Define what warrants international selection? Is it being one of the 'best' choices for your country? Priestland certainly achieves that. If it is some kind of unstated 'level' of competence and ability that each player has to meet, then you're on really shaky footing.

mikey_dragon wrote:The only time they've looked decent and not made a host of errors is when we are drubbing the opposition team.

No, not true. You're also conflating Hook- who has hardly played 10 for Wales since 2011- with Priestland, who obviously has. It's a cheap way of leveraging all of the criticism Hook receives onto the player you are trying to disparage. Unfortunately, it's just not true. Hook hasn't even been given the chance to play outside half for Wales. Priestland has. The comparison isn't valid, even if they had put in similar performances (they haven't).

mikey_dragon wrote:Williams might be selected in an emergency. Circumstances also change so he might be out of his contract a lot sooner. You seem awful sure of things which are somewhat unpredictable IMO.

It's irrelevant to say "oh, well, you can't predict the future can you...". If he has a contract, he's going to honour it. Incidentally, Owen Williams really isn't that good. His worth trebled as soon as he went to play in England and most Welsh fans no longer saw him play. Again, this is both a curse of the allure of salvation coming emblazoned in the 10 shirt, as well as fans willing to trust lazy media (in no small part because they want to believe that Jesus is a Welsh outside half). Owen Williams was picked for Leicester for a while during a significant period of decline for the club, and did alright. Nothing more. He suited the English game with the way he played, which I felt was far too deep for both the Pro12 but especially the Scarlets. Easterby liked seeing the Scarlets become a forward orientated team, but his loss wasn't a big one to the region. It's also true that Leicester do all their playmaking from their scrum half, Ben Youngs, so he was given a less pressurised role than had he been in a different sort of set up. That said, it would be good to have him back in Wales, as he seems to the kind of physical attributes that will suit a Test 10 under Gatland, and the more Welsh options the better.

mikey_dragon wrote:Thankfully for who, yourself? You must be a Scarlets fan too. It's certainly not for the Wales team benefit, the last two years prove that. True enough but it would also seem Gatland rates Andrews and hook higher than I do, hmmmmm....

This is just quite sad. Anyone who counters your ill-thought criticism of Priestland is a one-eyed Turk. If only you could see the irony in your own ignorance. I suppose if I'm one-eyed, that makes you blind...

On Scott Andrews: he hasn't actually let Wales down. Replaced Aaron Jarvis very early on against Wales in 2013 (?), and more than held his own in the scrum. I'd say his inclusion is- logically- based on these factors: he's still quite young for a tight head, he's quite fit and mobile for a Northern Hemisphere tight head so will be useful around the park, and there really are very few options for Wales at tight head. You're correct that Gatland rates him higher than you do. As we can see, your opinions grating against the Welsh selectors' is no bad thing for the national side.

mikey_dragon wrote:I think he's been pretty average and he makes too many errors

This is the first legitimate criticism you've made of Priestland. His main problem is he simply doesn't suit the way the international game has gone; he'd be a far better player were he playing ten or fifteen years ago, in a quicker and looser game, where small errors were less important in swaying the momentum of the game. He's a pretty good play-maker, not on the level of Stephen Jones admittedly, but he's a pretty good one nonetheless. That said, he's also adapted his natural game to play Test rugby and not solely play a shoulder-attacking, wide passing game. He's not been able to hone it effectively, however, and so his inconsistency remains his biggest weakness. But, errors happen, especially when you're the playmaker. Biggar suits Gatland's style because he is less adventurous. It's something that comes with the territory of the position. It also helps than Wales now play a lot more rugby from the scrum half and Rhys Webb. Let's not also discount the fact the Priestland played a lot of rugby when Mike Phillips was putting in his worst performances for Wales. The scenario now- with two half backs who have come up through the ranks together- is far more preferable and beneficial to the team, as they actually work as a unit.

mikey_dragon wrote:...not the first time Scarlets' supporters have annoyed me though.

mikey_dragon wrote:Okay I might be a little biased, but it's only fans that support the Scarlets who strongly disagree with me on this. From experience the supporters from West of Cardiff are insanely biased.

I feel we're starting to see the real motivation here...

mikey_dragon wrote:Under Gatland's tenure we've always seen two sets of half backs get game time. There was Peel and Jones, Phillips and Hook.

No, not true. Peel hardly played under Gatland. I'd hazard a guess and say Gareth Cooper and Richie Rees had more starts under Gatland than Peel. He has rarely picked half backs in 'combinations', unlike Gareth Jenkins did before him. It was typically Mike Phillips, plus Stephen Jones, as James Hook becoming increasingly marginalised.

I think it's also important to dispel the myth that Priestland was somehow sublime in the 2011-12 season. Part of the reason for his success in the RWC was because of his inexperience and the role he was asked to play. Much of the pressure was taken from him as Jamie Roberts and Mike Phillips became the two most important backs. His distribution, wide and diagonal kicks for territory, and up-and-under kicking was good because it was simplistic. It was only when he was given a greater role of responsiblity in the season after where the cracks began to show: whatever ratio self belief: ability his inconsistency sprung from, it doesn't really matter. However, as I said above, he didn't seem the best fit for Wales in terms of style, nor was he playing in a particularly effective half back pairing. Phillips plays for himself and as a 9th forward, that much is obvious, so when asked to divert from the 'kick the ball in the air for Roberts to catch' tactic, he was sometimes caught out. Especially as he was often given the ball when the forwards and Phillips had slowed it down having run out of ideas and momentum.

I'll add this though, which I feel is important in revealing attitude: Priestland was hounded for his charge down in the 22 against England in 2012, which led to his sin binning. The ball was at the base of the ruck for sixteen seconds before he was given the ball, allowing England to line up an effective chase. It led to three points, the final three points England scored that game. Biggar was charged down against Ireland in 2013. It led to a try. There was almost nothing said about it.

mikey_dragon wrote:SS if I come across as an RP-hater then I didn't mean to do so, in fact I've always distanced myself from some of the abuse he gets.

This sort of contrition doesn't really seem very genuine.

mikey_dragon wrote:You're right about Anscombe, but I can almost guarantee he'll be in line for some abuse from fans too should he get the preferential treatment that RP has always received (looks as if it is heading that way).

Again, why is Priestland apparently the sole benefactor of Gatland's consistent team selection? There were times when he made big errors in games, but they were mere moments in the full 80 minutes, much of which he performed pretty or very well in. Mike Phillips was far more damaging to the Welsh team. I'm really struggling to get over the fact that all this criticism is because of the number on the back of his shirt; it's not as if it's because he is still starting, which he is not. It's not as if he is playing dreadfully, or has done recently for Wales. He is in an almost identical position to Phillips in that he has been usurped by another player, but remains on the bench; yet despite there being far more exciting and legitimate scrum half options in Wales- Gareth Davies, Lloyd Williams, Rhodri Williams, even Aled Davies perhaps- than there are outside half options- Hook, Anscombe, M Morgan- it is still the 10 position that gets analysed. It is still those next in line who are seen as somehow in possession of something that will benefit the Welsh team. Even if you have not said this explicitly mikey, you're sadly an indictment of just how stuck the Welsh rugby public can be with its fascinations with this particular position. Yeah, it's interesting and important, but don't get to the point where you're almost fetishising it. I'm glad Chunky Norwich has alluded to it above as well.

mikey_dragon wrote:Is it that people who do not share your view on Priestland are dismissed as people who don't watch much rugby? Take me for instance, I watch it a lot. That's every international game and most Welsh Pro12 games that are aired. Based on all I've seen I don't rate Priestland and I don't believe his sublime 2011 form can ever return. Does that make me one of those fans who don't watch much rugby? He probably is the second best 10 in Wales, that I never disputed. Somebody seemed to suggest that he hadn't had a poor game in the last two years when in reality you can cherry pick a lot of games during that time where he ranged from average to disaster. 8/10? I'd say 6 and even that is being overly generous.

His form was never sublime in 2011. He was very good, but his performance was limited. The point was, it was effective. I'd say he was far better in the 2012 Grand Slam, the England game aside. It was then that the pressure seemed to start taking its toll on him. Everything you have said has been to disparage Priestland, how is that- along with saying you would choose any of the other three outside halves ahead of him- not a statement of your belief that he is not the second best Welsh outside half!? I have yet to see anyone who has said he hasn't, at times and at certain moments in certain games, played poorly in the last two years. Just what is the point you're making? I don't think anyone here is overestimating Priestland's ability, no one is saying he is or could have been one of the very best outside halves in the world. It is only you who is underestimating him, seemingly trying to run him down so you can taunt people who live 'West of Cardiff'. Why?

Well said Miaow.

Miaow I'm not entirely sure why you felt the need to write an essay over it at gone 2am in the morning... You clearly didn't heed my early reply. I haven't read your comments by the way as I haven't had enough coffee and I'm pretty much done on that subject, so don't expect a reply.

BBC Article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/33809845)
"Mike Phillips will have to fight it out for a place in the Wales squad for the World Cup, according to Rob Howley.

The Stade Francais scrum-half is in the team to face Ireland in a World Cup warm-up match in Cardiff.

But with Ospreys' Rhys Webb firmly established as first choice, Phillips, Gareth Davies and Lloyd Williams face a battle to join him in the squad."

Good old beeb, I think they are a bit confused, they knew it was a French club and took a punt.

But then when they have a headline like "Scoreline important, says Rob Howley" , it pretty much says it all

Good old beeb. I think Phillips is another one extremely lucky to be near this squad by the way... Scoreline? I think we'll have great difficulty coping with that Irish front 5. They have the stronger bench too.

Do the people who write for the Beeb have any interest in interest in rugby?

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

Like Jonny Wilkinson?

They both play 10 innit? That is probably (other than issues of where their heads were at at times) where the similarities end

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

No he isn't. Not sure where you were in Wales but quite evidently you were very lost.

Way to go with the intelligent arguments. I guess your comments on Burgess were just a blip.

For the record I lived at one end of what is described in the film 'Twin Town' as the pretty 'sheety' city for several very long damp years. And with that I'll leave this thread well alone

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

Like Jonny Wilkinson?

They both play 10 innit? That is probably (other than issues of where their heads were at at times) where the similarities end

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

No he isn't. Not sure where you were in Wales but quite evidently you were very lost.

Way to go with the intelligent arguments. I guess your comments on Burgess were just a blip.

For the record I lived at one end of what is described in the film 'Twin Town' as the pretty 'sheety' city for several very long damp years. And with that I'll leave this thread well alone

Probably for the best.

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

Like Jonny Wilkinson?

They both play 10 innit? That is probably (other than issues of where their heads were at at times) where the similarities end

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

No he isn't. Not sure where you were in Wales but quite evidently you were very lost.

Way to go with the intelligent arguments. I guess your comments on Burgess were just a blip.

For the record I lived at one end of what is described in the film 'Twin Town' as the pretty 'sheety' city for several very long damp years. And with that I'll leave this thread well alone

Probably for the best.

Don't you like it when people from other countries go on to your nation's threads and make comments?

lostinwales wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

Like Jonny Wilkinson?

They both play 10 innit? That is probably (other than issues of where their heads were at at times) where the similarities end

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Priestland at his best is a very good player. But from the dim and distant times when I lived in that part of the world and talked to Scarlets fans he wasn't up to much when he first appeared and we all know about his issues since. Sometimes you have to wonder if the purple patch was the 'blip'

No he isn't. Not sure where you were in Wales but quite evidently you were very lost.

Way to go with the intelligent arguments. I guess your comments on Burgess were just a blip.

For the record I lived at one end of what is described in the film 'Twin Town' as the pretty 'sheety' city for several very long damp years. And with that I'll leave this thread well alone

Probably for the best.

Don't you like it when people from other countries go on to your nation's threads and make comments?

Oh i see you aren't going to leave it well alone…..and I really could care less about your posting on here lost.

mikey_dragon wrote: Good old beeb. I think Phillips is another one extremely lucky to be near this squad by the way... Scoreline? I think we'll have great difficulty coping with that Irish front 5. They have the stronger bench too.

When you think we will take 3 scrum halfs for me Phillips is now third choice behind Webb and Davies, also I am not sure who else would be the third choice. I wouldn't have Ll Williams anywhere near squad.

Yeah that's true. I'm not sure who else I'd pick third choice.

I'd be more than happy to see Gareth Davies become second choice, but I'm not sure that will happen. Don't forget Mike Phillips was the starting scrum half against South Africa last Summer, in what was probably Wales' best performance for the last two seasons. He can definitely still do a job, and I'd be a little bit shocked if that wasn't as the number 21. I feel that, if you're the opposition, you'd rather not have to deal with Phillips in the last ten to fifteen minutes of a Test match. Hopefully, the training process will have focused his mind entirely on really performing in what will probably be his last few games for Wales, and we'll see a more effective Phillips than the one who has been really average when coming back into the side in the Autumn games etc. As a number of the Welsh players, I think removing the peripheral distraction of club rugby will benefit Phillips, and I think- if he's up for it- Mike can be an effective and blunt foil coming off the bench. If he doesn't play well, however, he'll have been a wasted selection, as when he's poor he really detracts from the Welsh back play.

Also, would Mike be the best third choice available? If the third choice is unlikely to get into the matchday squads for the 'big' games- instead getting picked against Uruguay- would it not be better to have someone who will play at a far higher tempo than Phillips? If you want to put tries on Uruguay, and even in the latter stages against Fiji it that game goes really well, you pick Gareth Davies. Phillips is different enough to Webb, aside from his experience, to be a useful understudy. Also, do you really want Mike Phillips being a potentially disruptibe influence in the squad because he knows the only chance he has of getting on the bench is if one of the 9s gets injured? Especially as the location is as close to a 'home' World Cup as you could possibly get, which might make fringe players a bit too 'comfortable'?

There's also no outstanding candidates after the 4 in the extended squad. There's a few decent players, but if they have been picked for Wales, it's usually for one or two caps and that's it.

I think it's been said, but I do think Gareth Davies blowing a try against Italy might go against him a bit. I think Mike Phillips is possibly still second choice and I kind of expect him to have a pretty good game tomorrow to cement that. Lloyd Williams will probably be the one to miss out.

Particularly excited by Tyler Morgan v Keith Earls tomorrow. Hope he goes well and puts in a solid defensive display. I have no issues with his attack, but wonder if (as Shaun Edwards alluded to) a new backline's defence will be as effective as we would hope.

miaow wrote:I'd be more than happy to see Gareth Davies become second choice, but I'm not sure that will happen. Don't forget Mike Phillips was the starting scrum half against South Africa last Summer, in what was probably Wales' best performance for the last two seasons. He can definitely still do a job, and I'd be a little bit shocked if that wasn't as the number 21. I feel that, if you're the opposition, you'd rather not have to deal with Phillips in the last ten to fifteen minutes of a Test match. Hopefully, the training process will have focused his mind entirely on really performing in what will probably be his last few games for Wales, and we'll see a more effective Phillips than the one who has been really average when coming back into the side in the Autumn games etc. As a number of the Welsh players, I think removing the peripheral distraction of club rugby will benefit Phillips, and I think- if he's up for it- Mike can be an effective and blunt foil coming off the bench. If he doesn't play well, however, he'll have been a wasted selection, as when he's poor he really detracts from the Welsh back play.

Also, would Mike be the best third choice available? If the third choice is unlikely to get into the matchday squads for the 'big' games- instead getting picked against Uruguay- would it not be better to have someone who will play at a far higher tempo than Phillips? If you want to put tries on Uruguay, and even in the latter stages against Fiji it that game goes really well, you pick Gareth Davies. Phillips is different enough to Webb, aside from his experience, to be a useful understudy. Also, do you really want Mike Phillips being a potentially disruptibe influence in the squad because he knows the only chance he has of getting on the bench is if one of the 9s gets injured? Especially as the location is as close to a 'home' World Cup as you could possibly get, which might make fringe players a bit too 'comfortable'?

There's also no outstanding candidates after the 4 in the extended squad. There's a few decent players, but if they have been picked for Wales, it's usually for one or two caps and that's it.

I agree with what you wrote. Mike Phillips has had some excellent games, even as recent as the SA tour. He had a very good RWC last time too. Maybe the squad time brings out the best in him.

I have no doubt that Phillips will be in the WC squad and whilst in my eyes he is now 3rd choice it wouldn't surprise me to see him play a big role in WC. It wouldn't surprise me either if he calls it a day after the tournament.

Like most not quite sure who else is about at the moment who could start challenging for a spot after Lloyd Williams.

Risca Rev wrote:I think it's been said, but I do think Gareth Davies blowing a try against Italy might go against him a bit. I think Mike Phillips is possibly still second choice and I kind of expect him to have a pretty good game tomorrow to cement that. Lloyd Williams will probably be the one to miss out.

Yeah, agree absolutely. Gatland favours players who thrive under pressure, or who snatch what small opportunity they are given on the biggest stage. The positive is his role in Scott Williams' try in the same game (although you could criticise him for ignoring Tipuric in what looked like an attempt to go all the way on his own but that might be a bit harsh), which may counter that error. It was, after all, an excusable error, if made a little worse by the fact that he appeared to take his eyes off the ball before he had caught it.

The real, glaring issue was the fact that it led to a 14 point swing for Wales, with Italy scoring from the resulting scrum. Who knows if Ireland would have been altered their tactics and played a little looser in order to get those extra points, but as it stands, not scoring the try- and conceding one instead- was the difference between Wales finishing third, and winning the 6N title.

There was a time when Gareth Davies could have been first choice scrum half. But injury, suspension and odd selection at the Scarlets counted against him. He is 2nd choice for me. Phillips isn't great but yeah he is 3rd choice and probably a decent third choice. When we played SA in that 2nd test we had scrum dominance, I think any scrum half would flourish with that. You also need to remember the game against Fiji, which must have been his worst performance to date, and his cameo against NZ getting charged down by Read. That's nowhere near good enough.

Phillips had a good game from the off against South Africa. Wales had parity in the scrum until South Africa's second row got binned around the 60th minute and they went to a 7 man scrum, so I'm not sure that's entirely the reason he played well. The Welsh forwards' performance and dominance at the breakdown- along with the fact it was South Africa, whose style Phillips always enjoys playing against- probably mattered more.

I agree that he was very poor in the Autumn. As I said, it's probably not the best environment to come into if you're not in the starting 15, especially if you're someone like Phillips who will surely feel he has nothing to prove. Given the extended in camp build up to the World Cup, I think he'll be a lot more effective. It's a bit of a gamble to pick him because of how poor his performances can be, but he offers unique attributes in the position, and that will always benefit him.

is today's game televised?

BBC1 Wales. It should also be on iPlayer.

MATCH THREAD

https://www.606v2.com/t60047-wales-vs-ireland-match-thread#3105809

If 25 of the 31 squad positions have been filled, would anyone like to hazard a guess at who those 25 are, and who will fill the remaining 6 places?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/33838321

It's perhaps also a question of position as well as personnel, and the forwards/backs split will be important. Nevertheless, I'll have a go:

'Guaranteed'

Loosehead
1. Gethin Jenkins
2. Paul James

Hooker
3. Scott Baldwin
4. Ken Owens
5. Richard Hibbard

Tighthead
6. Tomas Francis
7. Aaron Jarvis

Second Row
6. Alun Wyn Jones
7. Luke Charteris
8. Jake Ball

Blindside
9. Dan Lydiate
10. Ross Moriarty

Number 8
11. Taulupe Faletau

Openside
12. Sam Warburton
13. Justin Tipuric

Scrum Half
14. Rhys Webb
15. Gareth Davies
16. Mike Phillips

Outside Half
17. Dan Biggar
18. Rhys Priestland

Centre
19. Jamie Roberts
20. Scott Williams

Wing
21. George North

Full Back
22. Leigh Halfpenny

I've only been able to come to 22. However, add in Liam Williams and Samson Lee, if fit, and I'm also 95% certain Bradley Davies is in the squad, and that is the 25. I'm not sure whether Samson Lee's inclusion will actually change the make up of the props; though it might be crazy, I think we may have 3 tightheads and 2 looseheads in the final squad. I may be wrong, but hasn't Aaron Jarvis played loosehead on occasion? Paul James' ability to play tighthead may compromise this, however, and in that case, Jarvis gets dropped for Nicky Smith or Rob Evans (possibly the latter considering the pasting Smith got in the scrum today).

I'd also say Gareth Anscombe is all but nailed on as well, with Hook's Wales career all but over. So...

26. Gareth Anscombe
27. Eli Walker
28. Hallam Amos (no Cuthbert, but if Liam Williams is fit, it may help his chances, and Amos might miss out)
29. James King (for his versatility. Baker misses out, with Warburton and Moriarty covering 8)

Starting to struggle now. I have a feeling that it's between two more forwards, or one more + Tyler Morgan
30. Tyler Morgan
31. Rob Evans or Nicky Smith/Dom Day

awesome side but no strength in depth

My side after this week for Eng/Aus

Jenkins
Hibbard/Owens
Lee
AWJ
Charters
Lydiate
Warbs
Faletau
Webb
Biggar
North
Roberts
S Williams
Halfpenny
L Williams

James, Owens/Hibbard, Francis
Bradley
Tipuric
Williams (yeah i know)
Anscombe (probably Priestland)
Amos

V Fiji we need to put out a very strong pack, play 10 man and ensure the win.

V Uruguay, likewise a strong pack and play very high tempo and put on that cricket score.

Anscombe in his cameo today showed a lot of composure, something I haven't really seen from him that often. If he keeps that up he will be No.2 fly-half as he can already do the basics better than Priestland (sorry Scarlets' fans). The extra 5 players for me should be Rob Evans and he should be back-up to Jenkins as James is too prone to error and a penalty machine. Centre has to be Tyler Morgan otherwise he wouldn't have been in the team today. Back 3 I would take Walker and Amos if I could, Cuthbert hasn't been up to the required standard for a little over a season, the former two are much better players which I think they showed today. Surprisingly I think i'd also select James King, Baker was anonymous today and has been less consistent over the season.

I think it's worth pointing out that if an extra lock needed to go I would select Dom Day over Davies. I thought Day was very impressive today and actually tried to fight for spot in the team. Every time I see Davies play it seems like he doesn't know what planet he's on; plus I think he's overrated, he has one good game per year.