Any early leaders for the RWC ...

First topic message reminder :

Now all the contenders have played a warm-up game (or for the SH big 4, a tournament).. Does anyone have any thoughts on who's most likely to lift the trophy at the end. What about players, any standout for the player of the tournament...

I know this is really early, but think getting initial reaction and seeing how it pans out can be fun in its own way, providing it stays as banter and doesn't turn nasty...

fa0019 wrote:Lancaster's steady eddy approach is admiral but I think if I could prefer one of the 2 I'd prefer ultimate success with a dash of embarassing failure... rather than a conservative record such is Lancaster's.

I'd also say that with England he has a lot of talent too.... people always make up he took over a shambles of a side... they were GS champs when he took over.

No, that's not quite true. Johnson's 2011 team were 6N champions but had been hammered by Ireland in Dublin. They were also predominantly over 30 and most of the players were unlikely to make the next RWC. Also, the team ethos and performance deteriorated rapidly once they were in NZ - reportedly the senior players had fallen into a sense of entitlement.

The point about Lancaster is that he inherited an unhealthy culture and a team in which the age balance was all wrong for the start of an RWC cycle. He solved both problems by cutting almost all the senior players - but that created a new one of a side that has never, at any point in his tenure, been more experienced than its opposition. (It certainly hadn't before the 6N - may have managed it now).

wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

England: Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Flood, Cueto, Wilkinson, Youngs, Stevens, Thompson, Cole, Deacon, Palmer, Croft, Moody, Easter.
Replacements: Wigglesworth for Wilkinson (65), Banahan for Youngs (65), Corbisiero for Stevens (49), Hartley for Thompson (56), Shaw for Deacon (49), Lawes for Croft (46), Haskell for Moody (63).

This was the side of the 2011 QF defeat to France. How many of those players retired.... JW, Thompson, Moody and Shaw.

Thats pretty standard for a world cup. Its a little overstated IMO.

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I'd say he's done well but not outstanding. Consistency has been a problem and he's had a VERY talented squad of players to choose from.

Consistency? Oh i see so he should have won every year .

He has a 40% win rate win the tournament! Since he came in only Ireland have achieved that, France and England have a 12.5% win rate.

yes the squad is very talented but bar italy/scotland it is probably drawn from the smallest pool of players.

If we're being critical absolutely. A team that wins 2 GS and a further 6N should have a better record than 2 wins in 28 matches vs. the 3N sides. He has always had talented players available. Player pool doesn't matter if you always have say 30-40 decent individuals capable of playing test rugby.

SH sides, that  i totally agree with, but domestically he is the guy to beat with Schimdt now definitely challenging for that accolade and it certainly isn't Lancaster. As for player pool doesn't matter if you always have say 30-40 decent individuals... i just think thats totally wrong. Wales consistency of selection is because we have 20-30 first class players at any one time but not a great deal more. We just don't have the resources of England to draw on whose well documented over rotation and selection of players means that a month before RWC they dont have a clue who their 12 will be!

That lack of resources has meant we stick with a side and that in turn has cost us as due to a couple of injures, we start having to look at untested players. That is the problem for me. Suddenly MP is off the squad when what we need most right now are a couple of familiar faces in the backs for when th epressure comes on. We have lost JD2, Sanjay may be out, North will go after one tackle etc.

Putting forward a case for Wales

I think Wales have been completely written off. It wasn't too long ago that they won back to back 6 nations titles before Ireland's two titles and they also finished 4th losing to Australia by 3 points in the 3rd 4th place play off in the last WC.

This year wasn't a stellar years for Wales but they were the only team to beat Ireland in 2015 or indeed the last 12 months, the 6 nations champions and the 2nd best team in world rugby. In other words they can pull off big wins.

They also defeated South Africa last November for only the 2nd time in their history. Despite a horrendous record v Australia I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they somehow squeeze out of their group and end up in the Semis again.

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I'd say he's done well but not outstanding. Consistency has been a problem and he's had a VERY talented squad of players to choose from.

Consistency? Oh i see so he should have won every year .

He has a 40% win rate win the tournament! Since he came in only Ireland have achieved that, France and England have a 12.5% win rate.

yes the squad is very talented but bar italy/scotland it is probably drawn from the smallest pool of players.

If we're being critical absolutely. A team that wins 2 GS and a further 6N should have a better record than 2 wins in 28 matches vs. the 3N sides. He has always had talented players available. Player pool doesn't matter if you always have say 30-40 decent individuals capable of playing test rugby.

SH sides, that  i totally agree with, but domestically he is the guy to beat. As for player pool doesn't matter if you always have say 30-40 decent individuals, i just think thats totally wrong. Wales consistency of selection is because we have 20-30 first class players at any one time but not a great deal more. We just don't have the resources of England to draw on whose well documented over rotation and selection of players means that a month before RWC they dont have a clue who their 12 will be!

That lack of resources has meant we stick with a side and that in turn has cost us as due to a couple of injures, we start having to look at untested players. That is the problem for me. Suddenly MP is off the squad when what we need most right now are a couple of familiar faces in the backs for when th epressure comes on. We have lost JD2, Sanjay may be out, North will go after one tackle etc.

To be fair Gwlad I did say I thought Gatland had the better record compared to Lancaster regardless of his inferior win rate.

Phillips is a crazy one... especially if you think Wales could face the boks in the QF... he loves the boks, always raises his game and is well respected in SA (which is rare).
Hibbard is another nuts decision IMO... when you're facing the boks you need trench veterans regardless of his lineout woes. Those 2 fit the bill perfectly.

Our RWC depends on injury management. Keep this XV fit we could beat anyone….on our day  

Jenkins, Baldwin, Lee
AWJ, Charteris
Lydiate/Tipuric, Warburton, Faletau
Webb, Biggar
North, Roberts, SWIlliams, Halfpenny
LWIlliams

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I'd say he's done well but not outstanding. Consistency has been a problem and he's had a VERY talented squad of players to choose from.

Consistency? Oh i see so he should have won every year .

He has a 40% win rate win the tournament! Since he came in only Ireland have achieved that, France and England have a 12.5% win rate.

yes the squad is very talented but bar italy/scotland it is probably drawn from the smallest pool of players.

If we're being critical absolutely. A team that wins 2 GS and a further 6N should have a better record than 2 wins in 28 matches vs. the 3N sides. He has always had talented players available. Player pool doesn't matter if you always have say 30-40 decent individuals capable of playing test rugby.

SH sides, that  i totally agree with, but domestically he is the guy to beat. As for player pool doesn't matter if you always have say 30-40 decent individuals, i just think thats totally wrong. Wales consistency of selection is because we have 20-30 first class players at any one time but not a great deal more. We just don't have the resources of England to draw on whose well documented over rotation and selection of players means that a month before RWC they dont have a clue who their 12 will be!

That lack of resources has meant we stick with a side and that in turn has cost us as due to a couple of injures, we start having to look at untested players. That is the problem for me. Suddenly MP is off the squad when what we need most right now are a couple of familiar faces in the backs for when th epressure comes on. We have lost JD2, Sanjay may be out, North will go after one tackle etc.

To be fair Gwlad I did say I thought Gatland had the better record compared to Lancaster regardless of his inferior win rate.

Phillips is a crazy one... especially if you think Wales could face the boks in the QF... he loves the boks, always raises his game and is well respected in SA (which is rare).
Hibbard is another nuts decision IMO... when you're facing the boks you need trench veterans regardless of his lineout woes. Those 2 fit the bill perfectly.

I completely agree about both! Both winning Lions in Aus…now i think it is a fitness/recovery issue tbh as our schedule is punishing.

To beat AUS you have to play tipuric and  Warburton together. Has to gamble.

fa0019 wrote:To beat AUS you have to play tipuric and  Warburton together. Has to gamble.

Agree again but i dont think he will. We should because a set piece game against them doesn't work. Their scrum has improved. We aren't going to be kicking to Folau so yes we should play both and try and raise tempo even more than they do but i think we might just play into their hands. That game will be super tight.

Gatland has done well with his GS wins but his record against SH sides is shockingly poor.

Wales' run to the semi finals in the RWC was because of their strength vs NH sides.

Australia and England are not good opponents for Wales to face.

Gwlad the smallest pool of players allows for players to get experience at a earlier age.

North playing for Wales at 18, if North wanted to play for England which of course he could have he probably would have had to wait a lot longer for a cap. Same with the other EQ Welsh players.

He is 23 and has more international experience than all English wingers in the squad combined.

Francis has gone into the Welsh squad because he wants to play international rugby now - not in a few months time. Same with Moriarty. He doesn't want to fight it out with numerous other English players.

Wales throw youngsters in earlier than England. Some sink but some swim and flourish.

England could regret not picking Francis.

beshocked wrote:Gatland has done well with his GS wins but his record against SH sides is shockingly poor.

Wales' run to the semi finals in the RWC was because of their strength vs NH sides.

Australia and England are not good opponents for Wales to face.

Gwlad the smallest pool of players allows for players to get experience at a earlier age.

North playing for Wales at 18, if North wanted to play for England which of course he could have he probably would have had to wait a lot longer for a cap. Same with the other EQ Welsh players.

He is 23 and has more international experience than all English wingers in the squad combined.

Francis has gone into the Welsh squad because he wants to play international rugby now - not in a few months time. Same with Moriarty. He doesn't want to fight it out with numerous other English players.

Wales throw youngsters in earlier than England. Some sink but some swim and flourish.

England could regret not picking Francis.

I dont dispute our SH record, irrespective of the nature of our recent close defeats to Aus! A loss is a loss is a 4th loss.
In terms of the RWC 2011 stats, i recall we came within a whisker of beating SA there too and i felt we could have gone all the way in the final had the ref not been a complete fool and destroy an RWC semi, we still nearly beat fr (there is a nearly beat pattern building here)
This is our big problem, game management.

Fanster wrote:However I think Italy will be eyeing a real chance at qualification, with Frances inability to put teams away, and theyre lacklustre backline Italy must be viewing that game as their final!!

Infact I'm going to do it, foolishly back Italy to progress behind Ireland.

France beat Italy 29-0 in Rome in the 6 Nations (and France played poorly). Have Italy improved that much?

Gwlad wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gatland has done well with his GS wins but his record against SH sides is shockingly poor.

Wales' run to the semi finals in the RWC was because of their strength vs NH sides.

Australia and England are not good opponents for Wales to face.

Gwlad the smallest pool of players allows for players to get experience at a earlier age.

North playing for Wales at 18, if North wanted to play for England which of course he could have he probably would have had to wait a lot longer for a cap. Same with the other EQ Welsh players.

He is 23 and has more international experience than all English wingers in the squad combined.

Francis has gone into the Welsh squad because he wants to play international rugby now - not in a few months time. Same with Moriarty. He doesn't want to fight it out with numerous other English players.

Wales throw youngsters in earlier than England. Some sink but some swim and flourish.

England could regret not picking Francis.

I dont dispute our SH record, irrespective of the nature of our recent close defeats to Aus! A loss is a loss is a 4th loss.
In terms of the RWC 2011 stats, i recall we came within a whisker of beating SA there too and i felt we could have gone all the way in the final had the ref not been a complete fool and destroy an RWC semi, we still nearly beat fr (there is a nearly beat pattern building here)
This is our big problem, game management.

Problem is, if you go down the ifs and buts route and games that 'could' have been won, Wales could easily have lost to Samoa, especially if Samoa hadn't have had such a quick turn-around of games.

One other thing. Gwlad, you've now mentioned Wales' RWC semi-final more times than Inverdale and Woodward have ever mentioned England World Cup win

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Cyril wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gatland has done well with his GS wins but his record against SH sides is shockingly poor.

Wales' run to the semi finals in the RWC was because of their strength vs NH sides.

Australia and England are not good opponents for Wales to face.

Gwlad the smallest pool of players allows for players to get experience at a earlier age.

North playing for Wales at 18, if North wanted to play for England which of course he could have he probably would have had to wait a lot longer for a cap. Same with the other EQ Welsh players.

He is 23 and has more international experience than all English wingers in the squad combined.

Francis has gone into the Welsh squad because he wants to play international rugby now - not in a few months time. Same with Moriarty. He doesn't want to fight it out with numerous other English players.

Wales throw youngsters in earlier than England. Some sink but some swim and flourish.

England could regret not picking Francis.

I dont dispute our SH record, irrespective of the nature of our recent close defeats to Aus! A loss is a loss is a 4th loss.
In terms of the RWC 2011 stats, i recall we came within a whisker of beating SA there too and i felt we could have gone all the way in the final had the ref not been a complete fool and destroy an RWC semi, we still nearly beat fr (there is a nearly beat pattern building here)
This is our big problem, game management.

Problem is, if you go down the ifs and buts route and games that 'could' have been won, Wales could easily have lost to Samoa, especially if Samoa hadn't have had such a quick turn-around of games.

One other thing. Gwlad, you've now mentioned Wales' RWC semi-final more times than Inverdale and Woodward have ever mentioned England World Cup win

Fair enough but we all have our beefs, SA have lawrence, NZ Barnes, Ireland the millennium ball boy.

No Ireland definitely has Barnes too. Make no mistake about that.

And cyril i used ifs and buts largely to illustrate the point…we are shocking at game management v SH.

GunsGerms wrote:No Ireland definitely has Barnes too. Make no mistake about that.

Was that the Ferris yellow?

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

You were discussing Gatland,



Considering Wales' record against SA, OZ and NZ, you would have had ten wooden spoons if you competed in the RC

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Consistently win the RWC every 8-12 years too. Not bad a record that.

Wales does have a 2 RWC winners in their squad mind... Ross Moriarty & Gareth Anscombe. Shame both were with other countries.

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

You were discussing Gatland,



Considering Wales' record against SA, OZ and NZ, you would have had ten wooden spoons if you competed in the RC

We were? Thanks for letting me know.

BTW can i have my spoon back? And let me know when you want your toys back in you pram.

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

Not bad.

Aside from what Lancaster has done well, IE building a good squad (never a tough ask with a lot of players of equal calibre available to him) he hasn't really done much worthy of note. I rate the guy but England under him haven't won a tournament and his record vs SA is worse than Andy Robinson's. Robinson and Ashton were scapegoats. Lancaster hasn't really achieved much more, I would guess the win rate isn't much better either - for that reason I've always wondered why Lancaster has never been under fire from the fans and media in England.

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Consistently win the RWC every 8-12 years too. Not bad a record that.

Wales does have a 2 RWC winners in their squad mind... Ross Moriarty & Gareth Anscombe. Shame both were with other countries.

YAWN. More fool those countries for letting these guys go.

But winning an annual competition with usually only 3 teams in it once every 10 years is hardly something to be proud of.

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

You were discussing Gatland,



Considering Wales' record against SA, OZ and NZ, you would have had ten wooden spoons if you competed in the RC

Nah.. Wales would have probably had just one wooden spoon, Argentina would have the rest. Anyway, who picked up that spoon this year?

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Consistently win the RWC every 8-12 years too. Not bad a record that.

Wales does have a 2 RWC winners in their squad mind... Ross Moriarty & Gareth Anscombe. Shame both were with other countries.

YAWN. More fool those countries for letting these guys go.

But winning an annual competition with usually only 3 teams in it once every 10 years is hardly something to be proud of.

True that, especially when it is the usual top three in the world playing.

BTW, it is every 7 years

mikey_dragon wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

Not bad.

Aside from what Lancaster has done well, IE building a good squad (never a tough ask with a lot of players of equal calibre available to him) he hasn't really done much worthy of note. I rate the guy but England under him haven't won a tournament and his record vs SA is worse than Andy Robinson's. Robinson and Ashton were scapegoats. Lancaster hasn't really achieved much more, I would guess the win rate isn't much better either - for that reason I've always wondered why Lancaster has never been under fire from the fans and media in England.

A lot of kiwi's were worried that had Wayne Smith taken the England job they would have become world beaters.... I tend to agree with them. The same with Nick Mallett. Had England taken Mallett they IMO would have been the no.1 team in the world right now.
Lancaster isn't some saviour. He's a steady pair of hands sure but coaches who win the world cup tend to have a intuitive streak in them. Steady Eddy's tend to go home with their hands on their head and thinking "if only".

mikey_dragon wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

Not bad.

Aside from what Lancaster has done well, IE building a good squad (never a tough ask with a lot of players of equal calibre available to him) he hasn't really done much worthy of note. I rate the guy but England under him haven't won a tournament and his record vs SA is worse than Andy Robinson's. Robinson and Ashton were scapegoats. Lancaster hasn't really achieved much more, I would guess the win rate isn't much better either - for that reason I've always wondered why Lancaster has never been under fire from the fans and media in England.

2nd to a team with no grand slam isnt really that bad and considering hes brought through young players without a core of experience I think hes done well.Some havent been happy though and expect a string of 1st s. Given the format of the 6N its nott he be all for this team considering the development though I think we ll get over the next couple of years.

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Consistently win the RWC every 8-12 years too. Not bad a record that.

Wales does have a 2 RWC winners in their squad mind... Ross Moriarty & Gareth Anscombe. Shame both were with other countries.

YAWN. More fool those countries for letting these guys go.

But winning an annual competition with usually only 3 teams in it once every 10 years is hardly something to be proud of.

True that, especially when it is the usual top three in the world playing.

BTW, it is every 7 years

mea culpa, i mean't once in every decade it has been going.

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Consistently win the RWC every 8-12 years too. Not bad a record that.

Wales does have a 2 RWC winners in their squad mind... Ross Moriarty & Gareth Anscombe. Shame both were with other countries.

YAWN. More fool those countries for letting these guys go.

But winning an annual competition with usually only 3 teams in it once every 10 years is hardly something to be proud of.

When NZ have Carter, Cruden, Slade, Barrett at their disposal I think they can afford to lose Anscombe.

Also if Wales were in the 3N/RC... had they won a single tournament the players/the country would probably remember that day as their greatest ever rugby achievement. Got to beat NZ, SA and AUS. Wales haven't beaten NZ in 60 years, in 2009 the last time SA won the tournament... they beat NZ 3 games on the bounce (that's a once in a 1000 year event for Wales).

A Scot putting the boot in now!

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Consistently win the RWC every 8-12 years too. Not bad a record that.

Wales does have a 2 RWC winners in their squad mind... Ross Moriarty & Gareth Anscombe. Shame both were with other countries.

YAWN. More fool those countries for letting these guys go.

But winning an annual competition with usually only 3 teams in it once every 10 years is hardly something to be proud of.

When NZ have Carter, Cruden, Slade, Barrett at their disposal I think they can afford to lose Anscombe.

Also if Wales were in the 3N/RC... had they won a single tournament the players/the country would probably remember that day as their greatest ever rugby achievement. Got to beat NZ, SA and AUS. Wales haven't beaten NZ in 60 years, in 2009 the last time SA won the tournament... they beat NZ 3 games on the bounce (that's a once in a 1000 year event for Wales).

Scotland would have just run away and cried into their haggis

Oh I wasn't aware he was Scottish. Yeah it's a bit odd having one of them raking their studs all over you... I'll let it go over my head (on this occasion) .

mikey_dragon wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

Not bad.

Aside from what Lancaster has done well, IE building a good squad (never a tough ask with a lot of players of equal calibre available to him) he hasn't really done much worthy of note. I rate the guy but England under him haven't won a tournament and his record vs SA is worse than Andy Robinson's. Robinson and Ashton were scapegoats. Lancaster hasn't really achieved much more, I would guess the win rate isn't much better either - for that reason I've always wondered why Lancaster has never been under fire from the fans and media in England.

He's given out caps willy nilly and been very consistent. Apparently this is the pinnacle of his success.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

Not bad.

Aside from what Lancaster has done well, IE building a good squad (never a tough ask with a lot of players of equal calibre available to him) he hasn't really done much worthy of note. I rate the guy but England under him haven't won a tournament and his record vs SA is worse than Andy Robinson's. Robinson and Ashton were scapegoats. Lancaster hasn't really achieved much more, I would guess the win rate isn't much better either - for that reason I've always wondered why Lancaster has never been under fire from the fans and media in England.

2nd to a team with no grand slam isnt really that bad and considering hes brought through young players without a core of experience I think hes done well.Some havent been happy though and expect a string of 1st s. Given the format of the 6N its nott he be all for this team considering the development though I think we ll get over the next couple of years.

I said I rated him. I do believe he's a good coach. Just given the record isn't the best England have had (that seems to be expected of every England coach) and that it seemingly isn't much greater than some of his predecessors I find it strange he hasn't really been under fire. Robinson and Ashton were hung out to dry. I don't remember Johnson being treated the same way, give or take... I wonder how he compares with Lancaster's record?

Lancaster beating NZ and coming 2nd in everything has kept him on the simmer….and also, who else is there in this cycle? Unless he gets to RWC semi he'll be off IMO.

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Consistently win the RWC every 8-12 years too. Not bad a record that.

Wales does have a 2 RWC winners in their squad mind... Ross Moriarty & Gareth Anscombe. Shame both were with other countries.

YAWN. More fool those countries for letting these guys go.

But winning an annual competition with usually only 3 teams in it once every 10 years is hardly something to be proud of.

True that, especially when it is the usual top three in the world playing.

BTW, it is every 7 years

mea culpa, i mean't once in every decade it has been going.

You got to troll better than this, 2004 and 2009 is in the same decade

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

SA consistently win the RC once every 10 years

Consistently win the RWC every 8-12 years too. Not bad a record that.

Wales does have a 2 RWC winners in their squad mind... Ross Moriarty & Gareth Anscombe. Shame both were with other countries.

YAWN. More fool those countries for letting these guys go.

But winning an annual competition with usually only 3 teams in it once every 10 years is hardly something to be proud of.

True that, especially when it is the usual top three in the world playing.

BTW, it is every 7 years

mea culpa, i mean't once in every decade it has been going.

You got to troll better than this, 2004 and 2009 is in the same decade

not trolling at all…you trotted out the Welsh stats and i refried to yours, you just dont like it when i did that.

And sincere apologies on the stats, there is a pattern building, once in the nineties, twice in the noughties…by my calculation having not won it for 6 years that means SA will win it 3 times in the next 4 years. That is if they can beat Argentina.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Biltong wrote:wales under Gatland in the six nations.

1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd.

Not bad.

Aside from what Lancaster has done well, IE building a good squad (never a tough ask with a lot of players of equal calibre available to him) he hasn't really done much worthy of note. I rate the guy but England under him haven't won a tournament and his record vs SA is worse than Andy Robinson's. Robinson and Ashton were scapegoats. Lancaster hasn't really achieved much more, I would guess the win rate isn't much better either - for that reason I've always wondered why Lancaster has never been under fire from the fans and media in England.

2nd to a team with no grand slam isnt really that bad and considering hes brought through young players without a core of experience I think hes done well.Some havent been happy though and expect a string of 1st s. Given the format of the 6N its nott he be all for this team considering the development though I think we ll get over the next couple of years.

I said I rated him. I do believe he's a good coach. Just given the record isn't the best England have had (that seems to be expected of every England coach) and that it seemingly isn't much greater than some of his predecessors I find it strange he hasn't really been under fire. Robinson and Ashton were hung out to dry. I don't remember Johnson being treated the same way, give or take... I wonder how he compares with Lancaster's record?

We have that many fans you ll not have to look hard to find those who think hes mediocre at best. I think given the players hes had hes done well. Personally ive always said this wc is too soon for usa nd expect England to get stronger over the next 2 years or so. This wont be good enough for some but I think its more realistic. We re quite close to something special matching the side at the turn of the century imo, whether Lancaster is around or not.

fa0019 wrote:England: Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Flood, Cueto, Wilkinson, Youngs, Stevens, Thompson, Cole, Deacon, Palmer, Croft, Moody, Easter.
Replacements: Wigglesworth for Wilkinson (65), Banahan for Youngs (65), Corbisiero for Stevens (49), Hartley for Thompson (56), Shaw for Deacon (49), Lawes for Croft (46), Haskell for Moody (63).

This was the side of the 2011 QF defeat to France. How many of those players retired.... JW, Thompson, Moody and Shaw.

Thats pretty standard for a world cup. Its a little overstated IMO.

The issue was not the immediate retirements, it was that the squad had a lot of players who would have been too old to play in the 2015 World Cup (cultural issues apart). Out of that lot, the players who had retired from international rugby by 2015 were: Cueto, Wilkinson, Stevens, Thompson, Deacon, Palmer, Moody, Shaw. You can argue about Flood, and you can argue about whether Banahan should ever have played international rugby ;-).

It also shows the challenge that Lancaster's had with injuries. Who would have expected that Foden, Tuilagi, and Croft would be ruled out of this RWC by injury and Cole and Corbisiero would be absent for long periods? Add to that Hartley, and Flood removing himself from the scene. That's 12 out of 23 lost to injury or retirement, and 1 more to France and 1 to retirement. The only players missing between then and now where it's been entirely a coaching decision are Ashton and Banahan.

To be fair, there are more players in that group who are part of the squad today than I had thought - Youngs, Cole, Wigglesworth, Corbisiero, Lawes and Haskell. Plus possibly Easter. But that's still only 7 out of a squad of 31. That's a pretty big rebuilding job, especially when several players (and Lions at that - what did Gatland do to them on that trip?) were lost mid-cycle.

No 7&1/2 wrote:A Scot putting the boot in now!

Given I raise a couple of bokke I reckon I can at least comment on the boks.

Did I say you couldn't? Just amusing given Scotlands record in the 6Ns!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Did I say you couldn't? Just amusing given Scotlands record in the 6Ns!

Perhaps, but I'd rather be a poor overachiever rather than a talented underachiever.

Not sure Scotland are either!

GunsGerms wrote:Putting forward a case for Wales

I think Wales have been completely written off. It wasn't too long ago that they won back to back 6 nations titles before Ireland's two titles and they also finished 4th losing to Australia by 3 points in the 3rd 4th place play off in the last WC.

This year wasn't a stellar years for Wales but they were the only team to beat Ireland in 2015 or indeed the last 12 months, the 6 nations champions and the 2nd best team in world rugby. In other words they can pull off big wins.

They also defeated South Africa last November for only the 2nd time in their history. Despite a horrendous record v Australia I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they somehow squeeze out of their group and end up in the Semis again.

Yea Wales could be the surprise package - although it shouldn't be surprise. They have real top quality, proven players - AWJ, Warburton,Roberts, North, Faletau, 1/2 penny, Webb etc. - they finished the 6N very strongly, and but for a poor start could have done the slam.

I also think they've been hampered by so many players in France - I think their preparation going into the 6N wasn't as good as Gatland would have liked but the RWC will be different.

That said I think the lack of a top tight head could cost them against England and Australia, both teams they don't have a great record against. So on paper they are underdogs for both games. If they do qualify as winners then certainly they have the ability to reach the final and then who knows...

A few Welsh folk have bitten on here by the looks of it

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure Scotland are either!

6MM people. 1 SF, 5 QFs in 7 RWCs with the lowest player pool in all of tier 1 rugby inc. Argentina, Italy and even the USA.

27% win rate vs. the 3Ns in the last 5 years, the best win rate of all 6 nations teams. The team may have been in the doldrums for the last decade, c'est la vie.

Yet for all the money England pour into rugby, all the players they have available, the 2MM people who play the game... they can barely tread water with former colonials with literally a fraction of the budget and numbers. Everyone keeps on saying, oh the money will eventually make a difference, the balance of power will shift... if anything its gone backwards since professionalism.

If you can't see beyond the one dimensional then so be it.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure Scotland are either!

6MM people. 1 SF, 5 QFs in 7 RWCs with the lowest player pool in all of tier 1 rugby inc. Argentina, Italy and even the USA.

27% win rate vs. the 3Ns in the last 5 years, the best win rate of all 6 nations teams. The team may have been in the doldrums for the last decade, c'est la vie.

Yet for all the money England pour into rugby, all the players they have available, the 2MM people who play the game... they can barely tread water with former colonials with literally a fraction of the budget and numbers. Everyone keeps on saying, oh the money will eventually make a difference, the balance of power will shift... if anything its gone backwards since professionalism.

If you can't see beyond the one dimensional then so be it.

Money per person England must be the lowest so we're doing great! Don't worry mate keep latching onto SA for the reflected glory!

Lol, the selective statistics on this forum are hilarious

This fa0019 guy has got a real bee in his bonnet about England