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

So we won't worry about Dixon's lack of defensive awareness / positioning as a wing then. The Irish will be licking their lips!

Actually, you probably don't care too much about a wing's defensive capabilities, given how big a fan you are of Alex Cuthbert.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:So we won't worry about Dixon's lack of defensive awareness / positioning as a wing then. The Irish will be licking their lips!

Actually, you probably don't care too much about a wing's defensive capabilities, given how big a fan you are of Alex Cuthbert.

Who's a fan of Cuthbert, just because I see Gatland selecting him over anyone, and he's a guarenteed squadman/starter!! Cuthbert is one of the worst rugby players i've seen, but you can't deny his threat ball in hand! He is a proven try scorer, and teams watch him!

Dixon's defencive capabilities on the wing are probably on par with Cuthberts, and if I were Gatland I would be brushing him up on such things in camp!

Dixon isn't a defencive monster at 12 either, he's still developing and is prone to youngster mistakes.

Realistically Ireland are going to see any of our backline youngsters and licking their lips, if they put a strong side out! None of them are international standard yet, Dixon, Patchell, Morgan are all young, Patchell has some international experience at least. And Hook is well, Hook!

Let me ask, who would you prefer to see on the wing, Matthew Morgan or Eli Walker? Maybe Tom James?

I get the funny feeling Dixon won't travel, and Tom James will be a late bolter, he is very Cuthbertesque, and had a decent season.

Fanster, what would be your team for the first Ireland game then?

I only see Dixon as a 12, the only other position I think he could cover is flanker. Patchell won't be slotting into 12 either - if he or Anscombe are considered then it will be because of their ability to revert between 10 and 15, though I only see the latter making the final cut. As for wingers, I think he might give Amos and Walker game time. Cuthbert will more than likely make the final cut too, that guy should be scoring a few tries against the minnows.

Dixon won't travel if he's shunted out to the wing and doesn't get the chance to show what he can do as a centre. He's been called up as a result of his performances as a centre.

Tom James can't have had that good a season if Exeter are getting rid of him.

I personally wouldn't be looking to make wholesale changes, I prefer the way the All blacks try players and thats slotting them in to existing small units.

But I don't think Gatland does, and has already said he'd play a load of kids, kid of.

But just for fun i'd go with...

James
Hibbard
Francis
AWJ
Ball
Warburton
Tipuric
Baker
Webb
Biggar
Cuthbert
Patchell
Williams
North
Amos

With a bench of...

Jarvis
Evans
Baldwin
King
Falatau
Davies
Hook
Halfpenny

Just off the top of my head, I want to see options at centre, and FB, but within a first choice unit to allow for best possible platform.

Also TH is a worry, Lee will have made my squad other than a huge setback, so Francis has to have gametime. I'm still unsure between Baldwin and Hibbard.

Back row virtually picks itself, Warbs, Tips, Lyds, Falatau all go, with Baker. Kings ability to cover lock and 6 helps his cause also? Webb and Biggar give Patchell a platform to work off.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Dixon won't travel if he's shunted out to the wing and doesn't get the chance to show what he can do as a centre. He's been called up as a result of his performances as a centre.

Tom James can't have had that good a season if Exeter are getting rid of him.

I think James left for Exter on a bit of a whack because the Blues couldn't match the wage offer could they? And they've offloaded other players too to get the wage bill down.

He has been consistent, as he was for Cardiff, hasn't progressed too much but it's hard to tell with the difference in leagues etc...

I get the feeling though Gatland likes the brash and abbressive nature of his wingers, and is less inclined to select ball players and elusive runners. Look how long it took Williams to supercede Cuthbert!

Fanster wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:The fly-halves will probably be biggar, priest and anscombe. I can't see patch getting a look in. I actually forgot about walker, I guess he could be in.

Has Anscombe done enough to oust Hook?

No he hasn't but my feeling is that he will be in given he's on a DC and it's all been handed to him on a plate.

With the squad being cut after next week then there could be a really mixed up side those in last chance saloon etc. We could all name biggest part of his 31 man squad now with just a few places up for grabs.

Such a wum

You can't take somebody seriously if firstly they'd move Dixon to wing (despite the myth he has played there before), nor if you'd pick patchell at 12 before him. Even Hook would be a better 12 option than Patchell, as at least he has played in the centre internationally.

Fanster wrote:I'd go with...

James
Hibbard
Francis
AWJ
Ball
Warburton
Tipuric
Baker
Webb
Biggar
Cuthbert
Patchell
Williams
North
Amos

With a bench of...

Jarvis
Evans
Baldwin
King
Falatau
Davies
Hook
Halfpenny

What happened to Dixon on the wing? You don't even have him on the bench now!

Holy crap you guys are extremely easy to annoy for absolutely no reason whatsoever!!

If any of you read the thread, you'd realise my Dixon to wing comments were based n a particular line up of someone elses lineup, based on their thoughts of what Gatlands going to do, in a warm up game, pre tournament.

Then someone asked what my lineup would be.

Perspective nd context are beautifull things, but don't let them get in the way of getting offended!!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:I'd go with...

James
Hibbard
Francis
AWJ
Ball
Warburton
Tipuric
Baker
Webb
Biggar
Cuthbert
Patchell
Williams
North
Amos

With a bench of...

Jarvis
Evans
Baldwin
King
Falatau
Davies
Hook
Halfpenny

What happened to Dixon on the wing? You don't even have him on the bench now!

To be honest I think that's somewhere along the lines of what we will see next week though don't think he will risk some of the bigger names such as AWJ Warburton Webb Biigar and Sc Williams.

If I was to jiggle that side Fanster I would put:

Charteris in for AWJ
Moriarty in for Warburton
Davies and Hook for Webb and Biggar
T Morgan for Patchell

I definately see the merits for Charteris, tbh I was going to play him over AWJ, but thought AWJ selection would force Balls hand at the loneout, as opposed to allowing Charteris to do all the work.

I also was going to go for Lydiate over Warburton, but seeing Moriarty wouldn't hurt either.

I don't like the idea of switching out the half backs, if theres going to be an inexperienced 12 I'd want him to get as good a platform as possible, wether thats Patchell or Morgan wouldn't matter to me.

I don't like the idea of wholesale changes, I think every small unit should have at least 50% first teamers, if not 66%!

Its always the big gamble though between risking the 1st choice players getting injured and giving the youngsters some game time.

After all even the 1st choices still need game time. I wonder if we will see his 1st choice at all in these 3 games maybe against Italy at home as that would be seen as the easier of the games.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its always the big gamble though between risking the 1st choice players getting injured and giving the youngsters some game time.

After all even the 1st choices still need game time.  I wonder if we will see his 1st choice at all in these 3 games maybe against Italy at home as that would be seen as the easier of the games.

Maybe, but that would be very close to the first game, and tbh Uraguay would be the unofficial 4th warm up game we need to put points on!

I personally would like to see our 1st choice team v Ireland first up, any injuries would have some recover time, and the RWC prep would start with a bang! However I see us losing our 1st 2 games then being under pressure V ITaly, where we could get injuries!

Again thats the risk. With the squad being cut after the weekend I cant see him playing his first choice side until after that game.

Fanster wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its always the big gamble though between risking the 1st choice players getting injured and giving the youngsters some game time.

After all even the 1st choices still need game time.  I wonder if we will see his 1st choice at all in these 3 games maybe against Italy at home as that would be seen as the easier of the games.

Maybe, but that would be very close to the first game, and tbh Uraguay would be the unofficial 4th warm up game we need to put points on!

I personally would like to see our 1st choice team v Ireland first up, any injuries would have some recover time, and the RWC prep would start with a bang! However I see us losing our 1st 2 games then being under pressure V ITaly, where we could get injuries!

We need? so in this incarnation you're a taff, that's awesome.

Tom James now out with 'injured foot'….or did he see the writing on the wall? Has been previously troublesome in camp i recall several years ago when not selected?

I wouldn't wish injury on anyone so for him its bad news but I always thought he was a surprise pick and gave him very little chance of making the WC squad so from that point not a great loss.

I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

Knowsit17 wrote:I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

Welsh regional player in a slot in which there are injury doubts. Who would you have picked instead?

this intense training regime may be responsible for the injuries…dont see other RWC squads announcing losses

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

Welsh regional player in a slot in which there are injury doubts. Who would you have picked instead?

Tom Prydie or Dan Evans both can cover more than just wing and have been playing in Wales unlike James who has only just re signed.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

Welsh regional player in a slot in which there are injury doubts. Who would you have picked instead?

Tom Prydie or Dan Evans both can cover more than just wing and have been playing in Wales unlike James who has only just re signed.

Dan Evans, on the wing? At test level? Come on.

Prydie is barely average.

Knowsit17 wrote:I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

In my opinion, it's quite obvious. It also relates to Rory Thornton, who I think there was a big discussion earlier in this thread, or perhaps on another.

They're squad fodder. And I mean that in the nicest sense. Thornton's there as he will be a very willing holder of tackle bags, as well as giving him an insight into the kind of standards he should be aspiring to attain so that- in two years' time- he will know exactly what is expected of him (in training at least) to get into the Welsh squad on merit, and on a regular basis.

But the squad as a whole has the look of 'athletes' over footballers (barring the selection of five outside halves, three of which double up as utility players). Tom James is there to, basically, test George North and Alex Cuthbert, to push them to their limits. I don't doubt the motivation of the players, but if there's someone in your position who is pushing you in terms of training performance, then I imagine it keeps you only your toes. Realistically, North knows he's a shoe-in, and he knows James offers little threat to his starting berth. But from a purely egotistical, competitive side of things, nobody wishes to be second best at anything. You get the impression that- in terms of fitness and conditioning at least- it's a fairly brutal and uncompromising regime, not just in the physical aspect, but also the psychological, by pairing and grouping players together to really drive and produce that edge.

I might be wrong, but it feels a little manufactured, however if it produces the desired end result, who cares. You look at Southern Hemisphere rugby, and typically the outside backs have the whole package: skill, pace, and size/strength. North and Cuthbert have two of those, but they're lacking in skill. Eli Walker and Matthew Morgan are obviously lacking in other areas. If you don't put Tom James in there, if you don't have someone to test the two giant wingers, then perhaps they don't make those 1% gains that are apparently all important. What it doesn't do, however, is address the skill deficiencies of both those players. Liam Williams is the only player who I think would fit in to a Kiwi team (not necessarily the All Blacks, but Super Rugby at least), because he has the three attributes I listed above (if not big, he's deceptively strong, like Ben Smith). In the forwards, AWJ would probably be the only one I'd say would cut it at that level, although honourable mentions go to Faletau, Warburton, Gethin in his prime, and maybe Ken Owens too.

I don't make this comparison to the Southern Hemisphere for the sake of it, but rather I get the feeling that they have something the Northern Hemisphere (not just the Welsh set up) lacks in general, and that is versatility. Too often, players at the top level get away with having glaring deficiencies; Cuthbert's defence is atrocious, North's is pretty ordinary as well. The impression I get, especially from the All Blacks, is a unilateral approach to rugby: be tough and hard, and be able to play the ball, regardless of position. Now that's obviously a little too simplistic, but I don't see any New Zealand outside backs getting run over because they can't tackle, or any forwards butchering a draw-and-pass because they don't have the skill level. If you're (the relatively) little Ben Smith, and you grow up tackling great big Maori monsters, you toughen up quickly. The same applies to forwards and loose play.

To start to thread this strain of thought back into the topic at hand (Wales' RWC squad), everything Gatland has done since he has been with Wales is to try to amp up the 'normalised' standards within Welsh rugby, and to try to gulf the deficit between Wales and the more advanced and professional Southern Hemisphere, NZ in particular, as he joined from Waikato. But I'd also add to that, and say he's tried to bring in elements of the English game that is so painfully and obviously missing from the Welsh psyche, and that is the belief and desire to win every single game. Call it English arrogance, but so many of them really do have an innate belief that borders on self-entitlement that is bound by where they come from: their confidence comes from within, to the point they're almost immune from criticism and 'hatred' that comes from other countries. Wales are almost the complete opposite; the internal belief seems fragile, to the point that all those last minute defeats can only be put down to collective mental weakness with regards to winning.

Faced with this problem, Gatland has- for the most part- focused on beefing Wales up. They don't want to just fall back on the argument that, 'if they lose the game and are dominated up front, at least the backs scored some lovely tries'. He's built a pack that is now just about able to compete against the very best, but- for want of a better word- it's an 'artificial' creation. It's one that comes into the first day of Wales squad training in relatively poor condition, and needs to be beasted into shape, both psychologically and physically. It's why partly why Wales' performances fluctuate so dramatically. The regions- Ospreys aside- expect to win nothing, and the players do not appear to have the desire to change this: if Wales were as poor as England were in 2007, they could never dream of dragging themselves to a World Cup final on sheer grit and self belief alone. It's just not there, it's not part of the make-up, aside from perhaps AWJ. The Welsh players have pretty good skill levels across the board, but it's the strength and conditioning, and the mental aspect, that come across as the weaker parts.

That said, they still don't have the 'complete packages' the Southern Hemisphere churns out. So, with Gatland working at the apex of Welsh rugby, he has to look for a 'quick fix'; he is fairly powerless and unable to engineer a competitive environment in which skill and strength/toughness are both curated at schoolboy level, where players are not allowed to get away with relying on the aspect they are better at without improving their weaknesses. It results in the squad we have now. It's why Ross Moriarty was picked over the slight (and admittedly, therefore, less versatile) James Davies, and even perhaps Navidi or Aaron Shingler (although I'd contest that both those players are deserving of a place, the latter with his pedigree, the former for having a great season). Moriarty will push Lydiate, who needs a kicking in terms of motivation: aside from tight head, I'd say that he is most at risk of the first fifteen of losing his place, not necessarily for bad performances, but through lack of versatility. Whether Moriarty's English connections will add what I referred to as 'English mental strength', I doubt it, but he's there because he's big and he's strong and he will make sure that Lydiate doesn't 'coast' so to speak. He and the other big, physical players- Thornton, James, Dixon- will have made those camps that extra bit more uncomfortable for their fellow squad members. I hope it proves fruitful.

I'd also like to add that far too much focus seems to be spent on the versatile squad members who are unlikely to make the match day squad. If Gatland has shown anything, it's that he doesn't prepare well for injuries and rotation: we've seen that with Wales, and we saw it with the Lions squad's late calls ups. It's crazy to think that he may devote two thirds of the competitive warm up games deciding on who can be the third choice 10/15. I know that this is where the interesting debate is to be had, because we all know what the matchday 23 is going to be, so the relative strengths of one fringe player gets pitted against another. But aside from the several fly halves/utility players selected, I really don't think Gatland will spend much time thinking about it. Admittedly, this may be a flaw and inflexible, but Wales are unlikely to be remotely successful if they lose 5 or 6+ first team players. Thus, much of their preparation is going towards the first choice team.

It's just a matter of practicality and resources, and Gatland obviously feels it's better to hope that Roberts and Biggar stay fit and he won't have to improvise much more than the obvious (i.e. Roberts out, Williams moves over. Biggar out, Priestland in etc.). With that in mind, I'd expect to see players who are injury prone (Gethin, North's concussion), or have a player not up to the same standard next in line behind them (Roberts, Scott Williams, Halfpenny/Sanjay) play only a bit part in the warm up games, but the idea that they will be rested because the main motivation is to decide who will be the 31st member of the squad or whatever seems a little farfetched to me. The starting 15 and matchday 23 is and will be the priority. I'd say that he's probably already made his mind up on the Matthew Morgan/Gareth Anscombe/James Hook toss up as well (in my opinion, don't be shocked to see Morgan make it).

Tom James is out

Chunky Norwich wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

Welsh regional player in a slot in which there are injury doubts. Who would you have picked instead?

Tom Prydie or Dan Evans both can cover more than just wing and have been playing in Wales unlike James who has only just re signed.

Dan Evans, on the wing? At test level? Come on.

Prydie is barely average.

And James is better than both in what way? Have never rated him

So do you fancy our chances vs Ireland?

miaow wrote:I'd also like to add that far too much focus seems to be spent on the versatile squad members who are unlikely to make the match day squad. If Gatland has shown anything, it's that he doesn't prepare well for injuries and rotation: we've seen that with Wales, and we saw it with the Lions squad's late calls ups. It's crazy to think that he may devote two thirds of the competitive warm up games deciding on who can be the third choice 10/15. I know that this is where the interesting debate is to be had, because we all know what the matchday 23 is going to be, so the relative strengths of one fringe player gets pitted against another. But aside from the several fly halves/utility players selected, I really don't think Gatland will spend much time thinking about it. Admittedly, this may be a flaw and inflexible, but Wales are unlikely to be remotely successful if they lose 5 or 6+ first team players. Thus, much of their preparation is going towards the first choice team.

It's just a matter of practicality and resources, and Gatland obviously feels it's better to hope that Roberts and Biggar stay fit and he won't have to improvise much more than the obvious (i.e. Roberts out, Williams moves over. Biggar out, Priestland in etc.). With that in mind, I'd expect to see players who are injury prone (Gethin, North's concussion), or have a player not up to the same standard next in line behind them (Roberts, Scott Williams, Halfpenny/Sanjay) play only a bit part in the warm up games, but the idea that they will be rested because the main motivation is to decide who will be the 31st member of the squad or whatever seems a little farfetched to me. The starting 15 and matchday 23 is and will be the priority. I'd say that he's probably already made his mind up on the Matthew Morgan/Gareth Anscombe/James Hook toss up as well (in my opinion, don't be shocked to see Morgan make it).

we do?!!

what is it?

I would love to see Morgan make it, huge fan and he has the Shane x factor, however i think Anscombe will make it at least in part because i think there was an unwritten agreement that he would get his chance and he naturally replaces Hook. Personally I'd bin Priestland and keep Morgan, Anscombe and Hook. Hook and Anscombe cover the entire back line except perhaps 12 but Hook has played there i think, and with our strength in depth a real issue in a small squad in a tournament, much as i dislike utility players that scenario is when you need them.

I would be very surprised if M Morgan made the cut but I think Anscombe is a gimme and handed a slot on a plate

Gwlad wrote:

miaow wrote:because we all know what the matchday 23 is going to be

we do?!!

what is it?

I think we do, yes, within reason. Don't you? For the group stages, when presumably most if not all the current squad is available, the following positions are absolutely nailed on:

1. Jenkins
3. Lee
4. Charteris
5. AWJ
6. Lydiate
7. Warburton
8. Faletau
9. Webb
10. Biggar
11. North
12. Roberts
13. S Williams
15. Halfpenny

Perhaps the 23 is less certain than the 15, where I'd say that there's only some uncertainty over the hooker and right wing position, but it's still likely to be:

17. Paul James
18. Jarvis
19. Ball
20. Tipuric
22. Priestland

Again, the hooker position is up for grabs, and whilst I think Mike Phillips will probably be second choice 9, it's not a given. The 23 shirt depends on Liam Williams' fitness (as does the 14), but it'll in all likelihood go to a utility back rather than Cuthbert.

The interest comes if/when the injuries start flowing, but even then I think Gatland's likely to stick with the players who have done it for him in the past: Cuthbert, Hibbard etc. are likely to play over Dacey (even Owens? hopefully not) or Eli Walker and Hallam Amos.

Gwlad wrote:Personally I'd bin Priestland and keep Morgan, Anscombe and Hook. Hook and Anscombe cover the entire back line except perhaps 12 but Hook has played there i think, and with our strength in depth a real issue in a small squad in a tournament, much as i dislike utility players that scenario is when you need them.

I disagree entirely. Firstly, dropping one player for three doesn't really go, but also none of those has proved reliable at 10 at Test level for a number of years, if at all. With the way Biggar plays, the way he throws himself into the tackle and the aerial challenge, he's likely to pick up knocks that- if not keeping him out of the tournament- may well need him to go off for concussion or blood bins. Are you seriously saying you'd be happier with any of those three coming on at outside half for ten to fifteen minutes against England or Australia? Or, worse still, having to play the full 80?

I can't help but feel you're backing up what I'm saying about giving too much heed to the utility/second or third choice players. Rather than thinking about the matchday 23, you're prioritising flexibility and injury cover over simply getting the best team out there. Priestland is a far better outside half than all of those three. Aside from having a very good season for the Scarlets, he's also done pretty well for Wales from the bench. If you think he's so poor, please provide the evidence that his form in a Wales shirt renders Matthew Morgan, James Hook, and Gareth Anscombe as better options? I don't mean newspaper articles or reviews, there are plenty of full rugby games on video streaming services now; show me a match in the last two years where Priestland has had a poor game. It's fair to say he makes more individuals errors than Biggar, but I know that there have been far more suspect performances from some players- particularly up front, Ball and Hibbard have both been very ordinary this season- in a Welsh shirt in that timeframe than Priestland. I can't really believe that there's any need to defend him anymore. I really do question where the criticism comes from, and whether it's actually a well informed opinion, whenever people bring it up. Priestland is a good- not great- Test outside half, and a significantly better option than the three players you would have above him in the pecking order.

In relation to the benefit of greater utility on the bench, outside half is increasingly becoming a specialist position (look at Australia, despite all their 3/4s like O'Connor and Beale wanting to play 10, their most effective player in the position in recent years- Foley- is the one with the least running talent but most club experience), and if someone goes down injured in the 3/4s, I think it's a like for like replacement, same goes with 10. It's almost like having a second row who also covers lock: it's a pretty rare and difficult thing to do (it remains to be seen whether James King actually does this effectively). I think the demands of both roles are very different, and that can only make training a nightmare if you're preparing a player to cover 10, 12, 13, and 15 (possibly even wing as well). It's not fair on the player to skim three or four positions, and be expected to perform well if/when called upon in a game. For me, Matthew Morgan is a wing and 15 utility player, I highly doubt Gatland will trust him at 10 unless he wants to play 7s in the dying minutes when losing. Hook is the only one who could convincingly cover 10, but I just get the feeling Gatland doesn't trust him, and it's a legitimate concern as he can do pretty stupid things at times. Hook's consistent best for Wales was at 13 in 2010. He's a last resort anywhere else to be honest; his defence isn't good enough for 12 or 15 (Fran Steyn's try in the 2011 World Cup?), and I'm not even sure whether he'd make it at 13, as it has become the tip of the umbrella defence for Wales, and I don't think he has the pace for the position.

I'm not sure about Anscombe, haven't seen enough of him, but he'll probably go. I feel he and Matthew Morgan are different enough that they may both end up in the squad, Anscombe at 10 and Morgan as 3/4 cover, but I don't think Gatland will be spending much time worrying about them. As I said, if you're not putting 90% of your efforts into preparing the matchday 23, if you're trying to focus on consolidating the squad and managing the inevitable injuries that will come before the knockout stages, you're not going to get out of the group. Unless you play in the here and now in sport, you're unlikely to win, and this applies to the coaching side of things as it does to the players. It's correct to say that Wales' strength in depth is pretty poor, and that's why it's not really worth worrying about; if Wales do suffer a number of first team/squad injuries, we don't stand much of a chance anyway as there's such a gulf in quality or experience between the starter and his understudy. Why worry about who can do the least bad job at 10 out of the 3 utility players, when you'd be far better placed spending your time honing Biggar and Priestland?

Of course, I have now fully set myself up to look like a fool if Matthew Morgan comes in and does a 'Cruden-in-2011' job for Wales. It's a pessimistic view, but I also think it's realistic.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

Welsh regional player in a slot in which there are injury doubts. Who would you have picked instead?

Tom Prydie or Dan Evans both can cover more than just wing and have been playing in Wales unlike James who has only just re signed.

Dan Evans, on the wing? At test level? Come on.

Prydie is barely average.

And James is better than both in what way? Have never rated him

He's better at doing an impersonation of Forrest Gump.

If I'm honest then there are a number of matches in the past two years where Priestland has had  a poor game, Fiji is just one that springs to mind. I've lost count of the club performances where he's been a liability. You know it's a serious issue when the public are booing his baffling selection and the coaches have to ask the media to give him a confidence boost. I'm not saying that he's inferior to Hook, Morgan and Anscombe - he isn't. They're all probably on the same level. He's been alright lately for Wales, but in the 6 Nations he must have had 20 mins game time... I'm not confident in our back-up 10 at all and that is why fly-half remains a problem position for us. I've always rated Matthew Morgan, I don't think he was given a fair chance at Ospreys.

As for hooker I think it's Baldwin, Owens, Hibbard - in that order. First choice back 3 if fit and ready is Halfpenny, North and Williams.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

Welsh regional player in a slot in which there are injury doubts. Who would you have picked instead?

Tom Prydie or Dan Evans both can cover more than just wing and have been playing in Wales unlike James who has only just re signed.

Dan Evans, on the wing? At test level? Come on.

Prydie is barely average.

And James is better than both in what way? Have never rated him

He's better at doing an impersonation of Forrest Gump.

Tom James doesn't have a realistic chance of making the final squad. And I can't remember seeing his name on the team sheet for many premiership matches this year. He seemed to make a good start at Exeter when he joined years ago, and then disappeared of the radar.

miaow wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I must admit I have no inkling why Tom James was included to begin with.

In my opinion, it's quite obvious. It also relates to Rory Thornton, who I think there was a big discussion earlier in this thread, or perhaps on another.

They're squad fodder. And I mean that in the nicest sense. Thornton's there as he will be a very willing holder of tackle bags, as well as giving him an insight into the kind of standards he should be aspiring to attain so that- in two years' time- he will know exactly what is expected of him (in training at least) to get into the Welsh squad on merit, and on a regular basis.

But the squad as a whole has the look of 'athletes' over footballers (barring the selection of five outside halves, three of which double up as utility players). Tom James is there to, basically, test George North and Alex Cuthbert, to push them to their limits. I don't doubt the motivation of the players, but if there's someone in your position who is pushing you in terms of training performance, then I imagine it keeps you only your toes. Realistically, North knows he's a shoe-in, and he knows James offers little threat to his starting berth. But from a purely egotistical, competitive side of things, nobody wishes to be second best at anything. You get the impression that- in terms of fitness and conditioning at least- it's a fairly brutal and uncompromising regime, not just in the physical aspect, but also the psychological, by pairing and grouping players together to really drive and produce that edge.

I might be wrong, but it feels a little manufactured, however if it produces the desired end result, who cares. You look at Southern Hemisphere rugby, and typically the outside backs have the whole package: skill, pace, and size/strength. North and Cuthbert have two of those, but they're lacking in skill. Eli Walker and Matthew Morgan are obviously lacking in other areas. If you don't put Tom James in there, if you don't have someone to test the two giant wingers, then perhaps they don't make those 1% gains that are apparently all important. What it doesn't do, however, is address the skill deficiencies of both those players. Liam Williams is the only player who I think would fit in to a Kiwi team (not necessarily the All Blacks, but Super Rugby at least), because he has the three attributes I listed above (if not big, he's deceptively strong, like Ben Smith). In the forwards, AWJ would probably be the only one I'd say would cut it at that level, although honourable mentions go to Faletau, Warburton, Gethin in his prime, and maybe Ken Owens too.

I don't make this comparison to the Southern Hemisphere for the sake of it, but rather I get the feeling that they have something the Northern Hemisphere (not just the Welsh set up) lacks in general, and that is versatility. Too often, players at the top level get away with having glaring deficiencies; Cuthbert's defence is atrocious, North's is pretty ordinary as well. The impression I get, especially from the All Blacks, is a unilateral approach to rugby: be tough and hard, and be able to play the ball, regardless of position. Now that's obviously a little too simplistic, but I don't see any New Zealand outside backs getting run over because they can't tackle, or any forwards butchering a draw-and-pass because they don't have the skill level. If you're (the relatively) little Ben Smith, and you grow up tackling great big Maori monsters, you toughen up quickly. The same applies to forwards and loose play.

To start to thread this strain of thought back into the topic at hand (Wales' RWC squad), everything Gatland has done since he has been with Wales is to try to amp up the 'normalised' standards within Welsh rugby, and to try to gulf the deficit between Wales and the more advanced and professional Southern Hemisphere, NZ in particular, as he joined from Waikato. But I'd also add to that, and say he's tried to bring in elements of the English game that is so painfully and obviously missing from the Welsh psyche, and that is the belief and desire to win every single game. Call it English arrogance, but so many of them really do have an innate belief that borders on self-entitlement that is bound by where they come from: their confidence comes from within, to the point they're almost immune from criticism and 'hatred' that comes from other countries. Wales are almost the complete opposite; the internal belief seems fragile, to the point that all those last minute defeats can only be put down to collective mental weakness with regards to winning.

Faced with this problem, Gatland has- for the most part- focused on beefing Wales up. They don't want to just fall back on the argument that, 'if they lose the game and are dominated up front, at least the backs scored some lovely tries'. He's built a pack that is now just about able to compete against the very best, but- for want of a better word- it's an 'artificial' creation. It's one that comes into the first day of Wales squad training in relatively poor condition, and needs to be beasted into shape, both psychologically and physically. It's why partly why Wales' performances fluctuate so dramatically. The regions- Ospreys aside- expect to win nothing, and the players do not appear to have the desire to change this: if Wales were as poor as England were in 2007, they could never dream of dragging themselves to a World Cup final on sheer grit and self belief alone. It's just not there, it's not part of the make-up, aside from perhaps AWJ. The Welsh players have pretty good skill levels across the board, but it's the strength and conditioning, and the mental aspect, that come across as the weaker parts.

That said, they still don't have the 'complete packages' the Southern Hemisphere churns out. So, with Gatland working at the apex of Welsh rugby, he has to look for a 'quick fix'; he is fairly powerless and unable to engineer a competitive environment in which skill and strength/toughness are both curated at schoolboy level, where players are not allowed to get away with relying on the aspect they are better at without improving their weaknesses. It results in the squad we have now. It's why Ross Moriarty was picked over the slight (and admittedly, therefore, less versatile) James Davies, and even perhaps Navidi or Aaron Shingler (although I'd contest that both those players are deserving of a place, the latter with his pedigree, the former for having a great season). Moriarty will push Lydiate, who needs a kicking in terms of motivation: aside from tight head, I'd say that he is most at risk of the first fifteen of losing his place, not necessarily for bad performances, but through lack of versatility. Whether Moriarty's English connections will add what I referred to as 'English mental strength', I doubt it, but he's there because he's big and he's strong and he will make sure that Lydiate doesn't 'coast' so to speak. He and the other big, physical players- Thornton, James, Dixon- will have made those camps that extra bit more uncomfortable for their fellow squad members. I hope it proves fruitful.

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.

Wales' world cup in 2011 was undone by one poor mistimed tackle by Sam Warburton - it was a good run albeit Wales didn't beat one of the big three SH sides but still....

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

E.g.

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.

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.

Wales's bench certainly influenced the game against the All Blacks - but not in a positive way. Phillips got charged down for Kieran Reid's try, and if I recall correctly, Hook put the subsequent restart out on the full.

Speaking of Warburton's red card in the 2011 semi final, it's amazing how he managed to avoid criticism for it. That was all aimed at Alain Rolland, even though he followed the letter of the law and wouldn't have had anything to punish if Warburton hadn't dropped Vincent Clerc on his shoulders. Something tells me other players - Priestland, for example - wouldn't have got off so lightly if they'd made that tackle.

Luckless Pedestrian


I don't think it helped that Alain Rolland is French -having a French ref reffing a team vs France was always going to cause some calls of bias even if to the letter of the law it was the correct decision. It was also such a high profile incident and has set a precedence, plus it wrecked Wales' best chance of a RWC final.

To be fair to Warburton he probably didn't realise how small and light Clerc was. If he tackled a bigger man it probably wouldn't have happened.

The little turd milked it for all it was worth too

I'm pretty sure Rolland is Irish isn't he? But has a strong connection to France, and I agree he shouldn't have reffed the game vsFrance, after Wales had just put Ireland out of the tournament!

I'm not sayng he was right or wong here, just that he shouldn't have been put in that position, there were numerous outcries against refs in difficult positions in tht RWC, Nigel Owens being one high profile one.

I think the problem with the Warburton incident is that it went against the refereeing trend of the tournament, and previous years, yet we all look back at it with todays mindset of lift the player and you're in trouble. There were much worse tackles in the tournament that were penalised with yellow, or just penalised.

That said Rolland ruined a semi final France didn't deserve to win, the real reffing issue came in the final for my liking!

Rolland didn't ruin, it, Warburton did. The IRB backed Rolland's decision. I'm pretty sure all teams were issued with guidance on tip-tackles either before or during the tournament.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Rolland didn't ruin, it, Warburton did. The IRB backed Rolland's decision. I'm pretty sure all teams were issued with guidance on tip-tackles either before or during the tournament.

+1 to that. It was a crappy decision, but it was the right one. And truth be told we should have won that game with 14 men, but we didn't.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-rugby-world-cup-press-9780969

•George North will NOT play this weekend, Neil Jenkins has revealed
•Liam Williams is progressing well and Wales are 'optimistic' about World Cup chances
•Warren Gatland will name his team to face Ireland tomorrow morning

Fanster I guess you could argue he is both French and Irish but there is no way you can ignore his French roots. A ref's job is to be impartial.


A similar thing would be if JP Doyle reffed Ireland matches. Sure he's part of the RFU set up but he's Irish.

Rolland is as French as George North is English.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-rugby-world-cup-press-9780969

•George North will NOT play this weekend, Neil Jenkins has revealed
•Liam Williams is progressing well and Wales are 'optimistic' about World Cup chances
•Warren Gatland will name his team to face Ireland tomorrow morning

SS,

I would have been surprised to see North start anyway.

Bedford, I would not expect many dead-cert selections to start the game to be honest. But with George's injury issues, I would have expected him to have been a bench option, if only to come on for the last ten or so in order to ease him back in prior to the world cup.

Rolland is as French as Tomas Francis is English. Or alternatively you could say Rolland is as Irish as Tomas Francis is Welsh.

Rolland represented Ireland but he's French, Francis represents Wales but he's English.

Anyway we are going on off topic.

Gatland is in a very tough position. He and the Welsh fans know that - Pool A is one of the strongest RWC pool groups in living memory but that will be no consolation if they go out. Expectations are high even though Wales will start marginal underdogs.

Both England and Australia can be beaten by Wales but Wales must not give either England or Australia any sign of weakness.

I do think that England and Australia have the psychological edge over Wales but we'll see if that remains the case in the RWC.

Will be very interesting to see how Wales tackle each game - will it be from the boot of Halfpenny or is a bolder approach going to be used?

The win against Ireland in the 6 nations was a warning that Wales can slog it out with a good side like Ireland and come out on top.

Do you think they'll try a similar sort of approach?

I reckon we'll see Amos, T Morgan and Dixon involved as well as Moriarty and Francis to make sure they are tied to us.