QF1: South Africa v Wales, 17 October

First topic message reminder :

       
SOUTH AFRICA v WALES

17 October 2015
16:00 BST (UTC+01)
Twickenham, London

Live on expensive telly

Ref: Wayne Barnes (England)
ARs: George Clancy (Ireland) and JP Doyle (England)
TMO: Graham Hughes (England)

A. Head to Head

30 Played 30
27 Won 2
1 Drawn 1
2 Lost 27
814 Points 440

B. Recent Form

29 November 2014
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
12–6 to Wales

21 June 2014
Mbombela Stadium, Nelspruit
31–30 to South Africa

14 June 2014
Growthpoint Kings Park, Durban
38–16 to South Africa

9 November 2013
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
15–24 to South Africa

11 September 2011
Wellington Regional Stadium, Wellington
17–16 to South Africa

13 November 2010
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
25–29 to South Africa

5 June 2010
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
31–34 to South Africa

8 November 2008
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
15–20 to South Africa

C. TEAMS:
SOUTH AFRICA

Le Roux; Pietersen, Kriel, De Allende, Habana; Pollard, Du Preez (capt); Mtawarira, B du Plessis, Malherbe; De Jager, Etzebeth; Burger, Louw, Vermeulen.

Replacements: Strauss for Du Plessis (55), Nyakane for Tendai Mtawarira (56), J Du Plessis for Malherbe (60), Du Toit for Etzebeth (67), Alberts for Louw (67), Lambie for Pollard (76), Serfontein for Kriel (67), Pienaar (unused).


WALES

Anscombe; Cuthbert, Morgan, Roberts, North; Biggar, G Davies; Jenkins, Baldwin, Lee; Charteris, AW Jones; Lydiate, Warburton (capt), Faletau.

Replacements: Owens for Baldwin (56), James for Jenkins (55), Francis for Lee (55), Davies for Charteris (63), Tipuric for Lydiate (67), L Williams for G Davies (70), Priestland for Biggar (73), Hook for Morgan (67).

I didn't intend to suggest that you were blaming Barnes there Fanster, sorry if it came across that way

Sentiment is either:
1. Brave spirit, great defence, small margins etc

2. Played into their hands, no creativity, poor kicking, no plan B etc

To me, all the above. I'm proud that a depleated team ran SA close and equally frustrated that once again we don't have the basic skills, composure and tactics to move to the next level. We play one way only, which is good enough, some of the time. I saw nothing new yesterday from what didn't work the week before. We come second so well !

bedfordwelsh wrote:Fly,

I don't think they were clinging at all, they were totally dominant in the 2nd half and we just never got into their half to even try and force a few errors that might have given us a pop at goal.

They were clinging to the idea of a win. Yes they were. In dominant form but getting very little out of it except that one chance that came to them. I say that was them clinging to hope as much as Wales were clinging on by their fingernails.

SA will be disapointed that for all thier second half dominance they struggled to score and the game was close. Look at the stats it was a stuffing - but not on the scoreboard. Wales defense and turnovers when under the cosh kept them in the game.

The really big question for Wales fans now is whether Gatland has taken this side as far as he can given the years he has had and whether to get that extra 5-10% which means regularly beating SANZAR opposition will necessitate changing the coach.


You have too admit that Gatland as been the best thing to happen to Wales since he came on board. Welsh Rugby over the years has come on leaps and bounds, but seem to fall short at the last hurdle when it comes to playing SH teams.,,,,,The thing is (If Gatland does decide to go) now the rugby world cup is over, who will be good enough to step in too his shoes?

And another thing is Wales success over the last 7/8 years or so strictley down to Gatland?  How much of it is down to Edwards?

Like England i guess who can come in and take them that one step further on?

I hope Gatland doesn't go anywhere, there aren't many coaches around with his type of talent. I's say Joe Schmidt of Ireland and, Michael Cheika are the top three in the World, and Wales couldn't get either of the other two.

You could make a case for Eddie Jones as well as Japans showing in this World Cup means his stock is high, however he has been somewhat erratic in his career, he either over achieves brilliantly or crashes and burns. He is a boom bust type of coach.

majesticimperialman wrote:The really big question for Wales fans now is whether Gatland has taken this side as far as he can given the years he has had and whether to get that extra 5-10% which means regularly beating SANZAR opposition will necessitate changing the coach.


You have too admit that Gatland as been the best thing to happen to Wales since he came on board. Welsh Rugby over the years has come on leaps and bounds, but seem to fall short at the last hurdle when it comes to playing SH teams.,,,,,The thing is (If Gatland does decide to go) now the rugby world cup is over, who will be good enough to step in too his shoes?

And another thing is Wales success over the last 7/8 years or so strictley down to Gatland?  How much of it is down to Edwards?

Like England i guess who can come in and take them that one step further on?

Firstly adding 10% to Welsh performances is near impossible, I'd argue they are the odd 1 or 2% from acheiving victories over the SH teams, regularly losing by one score, or one play isn't falling 10% short.

Secondly, although you raise valid point ws this Welsh team in a condition where you can judge Gatland on the quarter final loss? Do you think any other teams could lose 7/8 players and still be competitive? Do you think Ireland, Scotland, even SA, Aus or France could lose 8 backs and still lose a quarter by one play?

I really think the best of Gatland may be yet to come, and without the huge run of bad luck Wales saw in the last 5/6 weeks we may have beaten Aus, SA, Scotland etc and be looking at a semi.

That said, we didn't, it's done, Gatland has a 4 year contract.

To me its been clear for a while that Gatlands tactics give Wales a good chance of beating the NH sides but not the SH.  He has done great things in many ways but I think the team need to chance their arm more - heroic defence and waiting for mistakes will not get you parity with the top teams.  FFS counterattack sometimes, use your back 3 in attack.  Its all just too predicable and while NH teams know whats coming they find it hard to break down wales and to stop them but SH teams find it quite possible.

So for me a new coach is essential to go that next step - someone prepared to take risks and to risk losing big to get the chance of big wins

TJ wrote:To me its been clear for a while that Gatlands tactics give Wales a good chance of beating the NH sides but not the SH.  He has done great things in many ways but I think the team need to chance their arm more - heroic defence and waiting for mistakes will not get you parity with the top teams.  FFS counterattack sometimes, use your back 3 in attack.  Its all just too predicable and while NH teams know whats coming they find it hard to break down wales and to stop them but SH teams find it quite possible.

So for me a new coach is essential to go that next step - someone prepared to take risks and to risk losing big to get the chance of big wins

So lower the NH win % to 6N mediocrity, to higher the SH % to gain the odd scalp?

Fnaster - look at the stats for the SA game - you were miles off them. You got one try of a piece of brilliance from Biggar and a horrible defensive error, you got lose onece with turnover ball - apart from that you never threatened the SA line at all and made virtually no progress ball in hand. Anopther day without all those turnovers in the Welsh 22 SA would have put 25 pts on you. NZ would have put 50+ points on you.

YOu simply need more in attack - some unpredictability

Fanster wrote:

TJ wrote:To me its been clear for a while that Gatlands tactics give Wales a good chance of beating the NH sides but not the SH.  He has done great things in many ways but I think the team need to chance their arm more - heroic defence and waiting for mistakes will not get you parity with the top teams.  FFS counterattack sometimes, use your back 3 in attack.  Its all just too predicable and while NH teams know whats coming they find it hard to break down wales and to stop them but SH teams find it quite possible.

So for me a new coach is essential to go that next step - someone prepared to take risks and to risk losing big to get the chance of big wins

So lower the NH win % to 6N mediocrity, to higher the SH % to gain the odd scalp?

YOu ain't beating SH sides now are you - not even looking like you might. You need to score tries to beat the SH.

Another instance that shows this is Wales being unable to score against Aus with two players in the bin. Thats just not good enough.

It's true, on another day, SA would have won by 20 or so. Wales did well through sheer willpower to stay close but they do need to find something extra. They can't rely on hanging on and being 'proud' every time.

It makes me think maybe Gats doesn't want the NZ job after all. Making a side difficult to beat isn't exactly an audition for the All Blacks. Granted NZ's players are a stratosphere above but Gats could try something different. He's got the 6Ns titles in the bag (a while ago now), now how about improving Wales' record against the SH? There's no chance of winning a World Cup without that. As TJ said, you need tries and a full 80 game. You're not going to get the latter against the best if you're so far behind on the stats (and knackered).

TJ wrote:Fnaster - look at the stats for the SA game - you were miles off them.  You got one try of a piece of brilliance from Biggar and a horrible defensive error, you got lose onece with turnover ball - apart from that you never threatened the SA line at all and made virtually no progress ball in hand.  Anopther day without all those turnovers in the Welsh 22 SA would have put 25 pts on you.  NZ would have put 50+ points on you.

YOu simply need more in attack - some unpredictability

Who are you kidding? SA threatened Wales line just as much as we threatened theirs, it was a RWC quarter final, and defences were king.

With a lead going into 75 mins what were you expecting Wales to do, go coast to coast trying to unlock a SA defence when we had a lead?

You claim we were bad because SA 'would have put 25' on us on another day, I'd argue on another day Du Prees doesn't scoe in the corner and Wales win, thats a far more likely scenario.

Also how can you hammer Welsh creative play when they were fielding 4th choice players drafted in from outside the suad, and injured themselves... Anscombe, and Eli Walker were injured and droppped, then re called up. 7/8 first choice backs were missing, what do you want to see, Tyler Morgan shredding through a world class defence?

Seriously re read what you just posted, it's nigh on insane.

It doesn't matter who Wales draft in. They would have played the same, crashball, one-dimensional game (and lost) if they had a full squad.

That's the main issue. Wales needed to be further ahead.

TJ wrote:

Fanster wrote:

TJ wrote:To me its been clear for a while that Gatlands tactics give Wales a good chance of beating the NH sides but not the SH.  He has done great things in many ways but I think the team need to chance their arm more - heroic defence and waiting for mistakes will not get you parity with the top teams.  FFS counterattack sometimes, use your back 3 in attack.  Its all just too predicable and while NH teams know whats coming they find it hard to break down wales and to stop them but SH teams find it quite possible.

So for me a new coach is essential to go that next step - someone prepared to take risks and to risk losing big to get the chance of big wins

So lower the NH win % to 6N mediocrity, to higher the SH % to gain the odd scalp?

YOu ain't beating SH sides now are you - not even looking like you might.  You need to score tries to beat the SH.

Firstly, we beat SA last Autumn, so yes we are beating SH teams, it's just a low %, and hence the word scalp. Wales have been 6N title contenders on week 5 consistently over the last 7/8 years, and their win ratio v NH opposition is up there with the best.

Why would the WRU be in favour of playing risier rugby, and losing more 6N games, to claim the odd friendly scalp every few years?

Cyril wrote:It doesn't matter who Wales draft in. They would have played the same, crashball, one-dimensional game (and lost) if they had a full squad.

That's the main issue. Wales needed to be further ahead.

So in your pseudo science mindset replaying a game in the exact same conditions would equal a much better SA performance and lesser Wales performance, but drafting in 3/4 of a first choice backline would make no odds to Wales performnce?

Listen to yourself, seriously.

TJ wrote:SA will be disapointed that for all thier second half dominance they struggled to score and the game was close.  Look at the stats it was a stuffing - but not on the scoreboard.  Wales defense and turnovers when under the cosh kept them in the game.

South Africa will learn a lot more from their match than NZ will learn from theirs.

Wales has been one of the best defending teams in the comp, they are also one of the best turnover teams in the comp.

Case in point.

Our players got turned over in the tackle as their focus was on having the ball available to offload, there were a number of one handed grips where the ball was ripped off, something that they can now take and say, "ok, how much focus on having ball avaialble to offload, and how much focus on protecting the ball better?"

We didn't clear the sides of the breakdowns, only to have a Welshman come around the side and hack at the ball with their feet, somethin that can be better protected.

The number of low tackles (some debatable as to their legality) isolated ball carriers. No support runners.

Too much ball to Burger.

We attacked too narrow, the Welsh rush defence was not exploited out wide, too many close channel balls, no space provided to De Allende.

Not once did we "drift" the Welsh defence and had a runner cut back into their "weak" shoulders.

Our tactical kicking was woeful. Never used the sapce behind the Welsh rush defence, not once.

Our rush defence was outsmarted with kicks in behind, no sweepers or floaters.

What will NZ learn from their match?

Biltong wrote:

TJ wrote:SA will be disapointed that for all thier second half dominance they struggled to score and the game was close.  Look at the stats it was a stuffing - but not on the scoreboard.  Wales defense and turnovers when under the cosh kept them in the game.

South Africa will learn a lot more from their match than NZ will learn from theirs.

Wales has been one of the best defending teams in the comp, they are also one of the best turnover teams in the comp.

Case in point.

Our players got turned over in the tackle as their focus was on having the ball available to offload, there were a number of one handed grips where the ball was ripped off, something that they can now take and say, "ok, how much focus on having ball avaialble to offload, and how much focus on protecting the ball better?"

We didn't clear the sides of the breakdowns, only to have a Welshman come around the side and hack at the ball with their feet, somethin that can be better protected.

We attacked too narrow, the Welsh rush defence was not exploited out wide, too many close channel balls, no space provided to De Allende.

Our tactical kicking was woeful.

Our rush defence was outsmarted with kicks in behind, no sweepers or floaters.

What will NZ learn from their match?

Agree 100%, Wales were smart, and attempted to play SA strengths against them, the ball targetting, the defence speed chnging, and the foot hacking was all designed to counter SA, France however rolled over.

NZ will now have to deal with issues during the game, wheres SA have been tested in numerous areas.

Ok so our injury list read:

Webb - No9
JD - No13
Sc Williams - No13
Allen - No13
Walker - wing
Li Williams - wing/XV
Amos - wing/XV
Halfpenny - XV/wing

Have I missed anyone?

Lets just say you could have picked one of that lot to be fit who would you have chosen, doesn't mean we would have won just wondering.

For me it would be JD think we have missed him quite a bit.

Guys - look at the stats if you think Wales were close and might have won. Look at the stats. second half Wales were no where near SA - no penetration, hardly visited the SA half let alone 22.

Biltong wrote:

What will NZ learn from their match?

That's they're invincible?

I'm not so certain what New Zealand have to learn. They gave the game just about everything and everything they gave glued Tight. In the tight, breakdown, out on the loose, kicking and retrieving, 80 minute full on intensity, strike running, linebreaking.

It was a smorgasbord of everything rugby is.... all in the one game.

Bedford - JD2 was your real big miss IMO - but only if given a bit of license to attack

bedfordwelsh wrote:Ok so our injury list read:

Webb - No9
JD - No13
Sc Williams - No13
Allen - No13
Walker - wing
Li Williams - wing/XV
Amos - wing/XV
Halfpenny - XV/wing

Have I missed anyone?

Lets just say you could have picked one of that lot to be fit who would you have chosen, doesn't mean we would have won just wondering.

For me it would be JD think we have missed him quite a bit.

If I had to pick the players in that list that I thought would make a difference (considering my knowledge is not extensive) it would be JD.

Anscombe dropped as well was carrying an Injury.

Roberts came into the tournament injured.

Rhodri Jones, Lee was injured and had no pre tourny.

Fanster wrote:Anscombe dropped as well was carrying an Injury.

Roberts came into the tournament injured.

Rhodri Jones, Lee was injured and had no pre tourny.

Sounds like poor player management.

Fanster wrote:Anscombe dropped as well was carrying an Injury.

Roberts came into the tournament injured.

Rhodri Jones, Lee was injured and had no pre tourny.

Forgot about Jones and meant the ones who were out altogether not carrying injuries. Read somewhere that these days no player is ever 100% fit as the way the game is played and the training regimes some teams have they are always carrying a knock here and there.

The problem with the injury list is twofold, firstly missing the player injured, and secondly the knock on effect it has with players who really shouldnt be playing.

Cuthbert would have been nowhere near that lineup had we had one of 1/2P, Williams, or Amos fit.

Granted Lloyd Williams on to the wing worked out well for the short period he had to cover, it highlights the bare bones Wales were down to.

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:Anscombe dropped as well was carrying an Injury.

Roberts came into the tournament injured.

Rhodri Jones, Lee was injured and had no pre tourny.

Sounds like poor player management.

I would agree with that, however through sheer desperation even a half fit Lee is better than a fully fit Andrews.

There are situations where poor management can be blamed, there are others where there are little alternative.

Fanster wrote:Anscombe dropped as well was carrying an Injury.

Roberts came into the tournament injured.

Rhodri Jones, Lee was injured and had no pre tourny.

Thought Anscombe went quite well yesterday and glad they went with him over Hook.

We seem to be making excuses now though, realistically, given the circumstances Wales gave their all, qualified through the toughest pool any RWC has ever seen, and were short in the quarters against a wounded SA team.

I'm pretty content with the Welsh effort, they were turning into the black knight, laying there just a pile of limbs, screaming 'come on i'll take you all on, it's just a flesh wound'.

Nothing to be taken away from SA, they were the better team, and deservedly go on to the semis!

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Fanster wrote:Anscombe dropped as well was carrying an Injury.

Roberts came into the tournament injured.

Rhodri Jones, Lee was injured and had no pre tourny.

Thought Anscombe went quite well yesterday and glad they went with him over Hook.

He was awful, rewatched the game this morning, he shwed a lack of experience at this level, however there was enough in that performance to see why he has come to play now, I think he'll get better.

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:It doesn't matter who Wales draft in. They would have played the same, crashball, one-dimensional game (and lost) if they had a full squad.

That's the main issue. Wales needed to be further ahead.

So in your pseudo science mindset replaying a game in the exact same conditions would equal a much better SA performance and lesser Wales performance, but drafting in 3/4 of a first choice backline would make no odds to Wales performnce?

Listen to yourself, seriously.

It's not black and white. Of course Wales would be more effective if our first choice team was available. Equally, and I think this is Cyril and others point, just executing our only game plan better, doesn't bridge the gap to the best teams. Yes we beat a tired SA second string a year ago, but we have lost 27 of 29 games v SH teams under Gatland. Our one approach isn't good enough and our basic skills aren't good enough. I'm sick of being proud of our plucky defense.

I've just watched us be pretty competitive in two games, both winnable, where we weren't good enough. Again.

Not excuses and as mentioned there no guarantee that even with all fit we would have won. Just curious as to who people would pick from the list but only one of them

TJ wrote:Guys - look at the stats if you think Wales were close and might have won.  Look at the stats.  second half Wales were no where near SA - no penetration, hardly visited the SA half let alone 22.  

Stats are a useful tool but they never really tell he whole story IMO.

Sure Wales did a lot of defending but you could also say that highlighted more the inability from SA in regards to clinical finishing.

Personally I felt that Wales were far better in attack than SA.

offload wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:It doesn't matter who Wales draft in. They would have played the same, crashball, one-dimensional game (and lost) if they had a full squad.

That's the main issue. Wales needed to be further ahead.

So in your pseudo science mindset replaying a game in the exact same conditions would equal a much better SA performance and lesser Wales performance, but drafting in 3/4 of a first choice backline would make no odds to Wales performnce?

Listen to yourself, seriously.

It's not black and white.  Of course Wales would be more effective if our first choice team was available.  Equally, and I think this is Cyril and others point, just executing our only game plan better, doesn't bridge the gap to the best teams.  Yes we beat a tired SA second string a year ago, but we have lost 27 of 29 games v SH teams under Gatland.  Our one approach isn't good enough and our basic skills aren't good enough.  I'm sick of being proud of our plucky defense.  

I've just watched us be pretty competitive in two games, both winnable, where we weren't good enough. Again.

Depends how you look at it, were we consistently within 5-7 points, and realistically in matches v SH teams pre Gatland?

Didn't we ship 60 to the English the seson before he joined?

Lets be a bit real about this, where we are now is a lot better than where we were before him, to claim he's taken us as far as he cn highlights we beleive we are better than we currently are, maybe he is having us play over and above what we are capable of?

eirebilly wrote:

TJ wrote:Guys - look at the stats if you think Wales were close and might have won.  Look at the stats.  second half Wales were no where near SA - no penetration, hardly visited the SA half let alone 22.  

Stats are a useful tool but they never really tell he whole story IMO.

Sure Wales did a lot of defending but you could also say that highlighted more the inability from SA in regards to clinical finishing.

Personally I felt that Wales were far better in attack than SA.

I've seen NZ win by 30+ with 40% of the ball, stats are stats, result is everything.

Fanster wrote:

offload wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:It doesn't matter who Wales draft in. They would have played the same, crashball, one-dimensional game (and lost) if they had a full squad.

That's the main issue. Wales needed to be further ahead.

So in your pseudo science mindset replaying a game in the exact same conditions would equal a much better SA performance and lesser Wales performance, but drafting in 3/4 of a first choice backline would make no odds to Wales performnce?

Listen to yourself, seriously.

It's not black and white.  Of course Wales would be more effective if our first choice team was available.  Equally, and I think this is Cyril and others point, just executing our only game plan better, doesn't bridge the gap to the best teams.  Yes we beat a tired SA second string a year ago, but we have lost 27 of 29 games v SH teams under Gatland.  Our one approach isn't good enough and our basic skills aren't good enough.  I'm sick of being proud of our plucky defense.  

I've just watched us be pretty competitive in two games, both winnable, where we weren't good enough. Again.

Depends how you look at it, were we consistently within 5-7 points, and realistically in matches v SH teams pre Gatland?

Didn't we ship 60 to the English the seson before he joined?

Lets be a bit real about this, where we are now is a lot better than where we were before him, to claim he's taken us as far as he cn highlights we beleive we are better than we currently are, maybe he is having us play over and above what we are capable of?

I don't think anyones saying we haven't improved hugely under Gatland. I think he's done particulalry well with a small player base. That doesn't mean he is the only option going forward. The biggest critisicm of Wales imo is that we aren't an obvious "learning" team. We repeat the same mistakes over and over. So the question for me is: Can we add a more instinctive creative approach to the power and defence, or is this all we can be?

Yes, we can add a more instinctive, creative approach to players, however that is a junior system issue that will take 15 years, not a national head coach issue.

Gatland can only work with what he has.

Fanster wrote:Yes, we can add a more instinctive, creative approach to players, however that is a junior system issue that will take 15 years, not a national head coach issue.

Gatland can only work with what he has.

I don't buy that at all. The way a team plays can be nurtured and coached. There are plenty of examples in sport of "raw talent" being stifled by tactics and a game plan. Also plenty where talent is allowed to flourish. Gatland has epotomised a one dimensional approach.

offload wrote:

Fanster wrote:Yes, we can add a more instinctive, creative approach to players, however that is a junior system issue that will take 15 years, not a national head coach issue.

Gatland can only work with what he has.

I don't buy that at all.  The way a team plays can be nurtured and coached.  There are plenty of examples in sport of "raw talent" being stifled by tactics and a game plan.  Also plenty where talent is allowed to flourish.  Gatland has epotomised a one dimensional approach.

Over years, what head coach in todays climate has years to aim for a specific target, as opposed to immediate results?

Gatland selected 13 Ospreys in his first match, not because he thought they would be world cup winners in 3 years, but because he needed results!

Fanster wrote:

offload wrote:

Fanster wrote:Yes, we can add a more instinctive, creative approach to players, however that is a junior system issue that will take 15 years, not a national head coach issue.

Gatland can only work with what he has.

I don't buy that at all.  The way a team plays can be nurtured and coached.  There are plenty of examples in sport of "raw talent" being stifled by tactics and a game plan.  Also plenty where talent is allowed to flourish.  Gatland has epotomised a one dimensional approach.

Over years, what head coach in todays climate has years to aim for a specific target, as opposed to immediate results?

Gatland selected 13 Ospreys in his first match, not because he thought they would be world cup winners in 3 years, but because he needed results!

I don't agree with youe assumption that it takes years. More important is the realisation that more is needed and the courage to do something different.

I don't think its a lack of creative players or a lack of bottle from Gatland - I just think he has taken Wales s far as he can - and that is a long way indeed. Who would be a better coach that would take the job tho is a very good question indeed

offload wrote:

Fanster wrote:

offload wrote:

Fanster wrote:Yes, we can add a more instinctive, creative approach to players, however that is a junior system issue that will take 15 years, not a national head coach issue.

Gatland can only work with what he has.

I don't buy that at all.  The way a team plays can be nurtured and coached.  There are plenty of examples in sport of "raw talent" being stifled by tactics and a game plan.  Also plenty where talent is allowed to flourish.  Gatland has epotomised a one dimensional approach.

Over years, what head coach in todays climate has years to aim for a specific target, as opposed to immediate results?

Gatland selected 13 Ospreys in his first match, not because he thought they would be world cup winners in 3 years, but because he needed results!

I don't agree with youe assumption that it takes years.  More important is the realisation that more is needed and the courage to do something different.

It's not my assumption, it's scientific theory, anyone whos every trained or played sport professionally, or studied it will know it takes around 10'000 hours, or 10 years of specific training/playing to become a profesisonal. If the junior system is flawed this won't start till late teens

Fanster wrote:

offload wrote:

Fanster wrote:

offload wrote:

Fanster wrote:Yes, we can add a more instinctive, creative approach to players, however that is a junior system issue that will take 15 years, not a national head coach issue.

Gatland can only work with what he has.

I don't buy that at all.  The way a team plays can be nurtured and coached.  There are plenty of examples in sport of "raw talent" being stifled by tactics and a game plan.  Also plenty where talent is allowed to flourish.  Gatland has epotomised a one dimensional approach.

Over years, what head coach in todays climate has years to aim for a specific target, as opposed to immediate results?

Gatland selected 13 Ospreys in his first match, not because he thought they would be world cup winners in 3 years, but because he needed results!

I don't agree with youe assumption that it takes years.  More important is the realisation that more is needed and the courage to do something different.

It's not my assumption, it's scientific theory, anyone whos every trained or played sport professionally, or studied it will know it takes around 10'000 hours, or 10 years of specific training/playing to become a profesisonal. If the junior system is flawed this won't start till late teens

Come on, don't be as stubborn as Gatland! The junior system will need improvement, but it's not just that. We have professionals now who are only encouraged to play one way, to one game plan based on power. That can be added to with a change of mindset. However, there is no evidence that the coaching team recognise a need to add anything. More of the same, done better is their mantra.

They havnt just flipped a coin and gone with whatever it landed on though, they looked at their plyer base and are playing toward a strength, which on the whole works.

If they are constantly challenging for 6N titles and RWC semi's what more can you ask?

Wales doesn't have the money, player base, economic climate to challenge the big nations, what do you want from the head coach, constant miracles?

I don't think that anyone can make a team win if they ultimately haven't got the players to do so. However, it has to be a valid comment that other coaches may have different (and ultimately possibly better) ideas as to how to take this Wales team to the next level.

Given Wales representation on the last Lions tour, there also has to be an argument that Gatland's win record against SANZAR opposition could be better than it is. It's not in any way disloyal to Gatland to say that and it also does not make sense to claim that looking for a second opinion in some way diminishes the massive amount that Gatland has achieved to date. Of course it doesn't.

Because otherwise what are people saying? That Gatland's coaching could not possibly be improved upon? You cannot say that about any coach. That the players could not possibly get even better than they are? Again, I would question whether that could ever be true.

George Carlin wrote:I don't think that anyone can make a team win if they ultimately haven't got the players to do so. However, it has to be a valid comment that other coaches may have different (and ultimately possibly better) ideas as to how to take this Wales team to the next level.

Given Wales representation on the last Lions tour, there also has to be an argument that Gatland's win record against SANZAR opposition could be better than it is. It's not in any way disloyal to Gatland to say that and it also does not make sense to claim that looking for a second opinion in some way diminishes the massive amount that Gatland has achieved to date. Of course it doesn't.

Because otherwise what are people saying? That Gatland's coaching could not possibly be improved upon? You cannot say that about any coach. That the players could not possibly get even better than they are? Again, I would question whether that could ever be true.

You've expanded my point well. I'm not prepared to accept that Wales are as good as we can be and that we should settle for where we're at. I want to see a coaching team that build on what we have achieved - the best teams are always evolving. I don't see that from Gatland.

offload wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I don't think that anyone can make a team win if they ultimately haven't got the players to do so. However, it has to be a valid comment that other coaches may have different (and ultimately possibly better) ideas as to how to take this Wales team to the next level.

Given Wales representation on the last Lions tour, there also has to be an argument that Gatland's win record against SANZAR opposition could be better than it is. It's not in any way disloyal to Gatland to say that and it also does not make sense to claim that looking for a second opinion in some way diminishes the massive amount that Gatland has achieved to date. Of course it doesn't.

Because otherwise what are people saying? That Gatland's coaching could not possibly be improved upon? You cannot say that about any coach. That the players could not possibly get even better than they are? Again, I would question whether that could ever be true.

You've expanded my point well.  I'm not prepared to accept that Wales are as good as we can be and that we should settle for where we're at.  I want to see a coaching team that build on what we have achieved - the best teams are always evolving.  I don't see that from Gatland.

Because you dont see it doesn't mean theres not a massive amount of work going on behind the scenes, remember you see just miniscule snippets of what is going on.

Gatland has never showed an inability to progress, every part of the Welsh game plan is subtly changing, because they havn't opened up and scored try after try with a full backline missing doesn't mean he's gone stale.

Perspective.

Fanster wrote:

offload wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I don't think that anyone can make a team win if they ultimately haven't got the players to do so. However, it has to be a valid comment that other coaches may have different (and ultimately possibly better) ideas as to how to take this Wales team to the next level.

Given Wales representation on the last Lions tour, there also has to be an argument that Gatland's win record against SANZAR opposition could be better than it is. It's not in any way disloyal to Gatland to say that and it also does not make sense to claim that looking for a second opinion in some way diminishes the massive amount that Gatland has achieved to date. Of course it doesn't.

Because otherwise what are people saying? That Gatland's coaching could not possibly be improved upon? You cannot say that about any coach. That the players could not possibly get even better than they are? Again, I would question whether that could ever be true.

You've expanded my point well.  I'm not prepared to accept that Wales are as good as we can be and that we should settle for where we're at.  I want to see a coaching team that build on what we have achieved - the best teams are always evolving.  I don't see that from Gatland.

Because you dont see it doesn't mean theres not a massive amount of work going on behind the scenes, remember you see just miniscule snippets of what is going on.

Gatland has never showed an inability to progress, every part of the Welsh game plan is subtly changing, because they havn't opened up and scored try after try with a full backline missing doesn't mean he's gone stale.

Perspective.

There is more than one - and yours may not be accurate. Many hold the view that Gatland has not shown much progress for a while, nothing to do with current injuries. Subtly changing game plan ?????? where.