6N 2016: England v Wales, 12 March

First topic message reminder :

  
ENGLAND v WALES
12 March 2016
KO: 16:00 GMT
Twickenham, London

Live on ITV, RTE, SC4, FR2, DMAX / BBC (H)

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

119 Played 119
53 Won 54
12 Drawn 12
54 Lost 53
1,428 Points 1,371

B. Recent Form

26 September 2015: Twickenham, London
25 – 28 to Wales
2015 Rugby World Cup Pool A

6 February 2015: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
16 – 21 to England
2015 Six Nations

9 March 2014: Twickenham Stadium, London
29 – 18 to England
2014 Six Nations

16 March 2013: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
30 – 3 to Wales
2013 Six Nations

25 February 2012: Twickenham Stadium, London
12 – 19 to Wales
2012 Six Nations

13 August 2011: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
19 – 9 to Wales
2011 Rugby World Cup warm up test

6 August 2011: Twickenham, London
23 – 19 to England
2011 Rugby World Cup warm up test

C. Teams

ENGLAND

[tbc]

WALES

[tbc]

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

What?

miaow wrote:England are, after all, a good team, and there's not a lot between the two teams. [...] In 2011, England were fairly dominant [...] and England were fully deserving of their 19-26 victory. [...] England look threatening when they run the ball.

etc. etc.

You're looking for an insult where there isn't one.

EDIT: Just seen you're later comments. Fair enough, I understand the tone of this board can make people a bit confrontational. It's not my aim. I'm also not claiming to be objective. I do think Wales are the better team, marginally, due in no small part to the coaching staff they have (or perhaps is it all down to Gatland?). As much as Wales might look at England's player depth with envy, I still think Wales have, on the whole, a better 'first choice' 15 than England, whatever that is worth (when is everyone fit in modern Test rugby?). That said, I'm not trying to reduce England's wins against Wales to mere flukes, or simply due to Wales being 'not good enough on the day'. I've said for several years there is very little between England, Wales, and Ireland, and has been since about 2012. Wales I think fluctuate between greater highs and lows than the other two, and still have a big hurdle to overcome in the form of the SH teams. England seem more consistent than Wales, but have tended to lose all the important title winning games they have played since 2011. I struggle to see the vast changes between the rugby England have played in this 6N, and the rugby they played under Lancaster. Whether there's a change in mental strength and belief that will see them win games they had previously lost, who knows. Let's wait and see.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Find one quote where I said he's the successor to Greenwood. Just one. When you don't come back here and apologise.

I will not apologise to you. You have not apologised to me when you have been wrong.

I don't show too much humility but on some rare occasions I admit I am wrong. You don't.

I am not going to trawl for posts two years ago. If you want to then be my guest.

I will have gained nothing. I just find it odd that you are now seem to be denying that you were a supporter of Twelvetrees. Each to their own I guess.

Griff that's the thing. I spend as much time if not more so arguing with English fans rather than other nationalities.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 it's you who is lying. You generally been talking up Twelvetrees. Perhaps not now that you realise he's not good enough.

It's a relief though that you have seen the error of your ways.

Will be interesting to see how LCD does. Hope he plays well.

When 36 came on the scene, he was an exciting prospect. I particularly remember the game he had v Ospreys which ended in a draw that saw him have a very good game. I do remember some people at the time getting quite excited about his prospects. He did finally get his chance for England but never really impressed and his international career was justifiably short.

But in all seriousness, I've been on here for a few years now and I honestly do not remember anyone making out that 36 was the new Greenwood or anything like it. As I said, some were pleased to see him get his chance internationally and were talking him up, but nobody in my memory has suggested he's was - or is - the solution to England's seemingly perpetual midfield conundrum.

Jesus christ I know the standard of rugby this year is urine poor but can we elevate the discussion a bit above who said what about who, who should be making apologies and other playground BS?

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Find one quote where I said he's the successor to Greenwood. Just one. When you don't come back here and apologise.

I will not apologise to you. You have not apologised to me when you have been wrong.

I don't show too much humility but on some rare occasions I admit I am wrong. You don't.

I am not going to trawl for posts two years ago. If you want to then be my guest.

I will have gained nothing. I just find it odd that you are now seem to be denying that you were a supporter of Twelvetrees. Each to their own I guess.

Griff that's the thing. I spend as much time if not more so arguing with English fans rather than other nationalities.

Because the quote doesn't exist. I'll never deny I would have chosen Twelvetrees in an England team, making you rubbish about him being Greenwoods successor is beneath you beshocked. Suck it up, admit you're lying or delete the post.

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

miaow wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

What?

miaow wrote:England are, after all, a good team, and there's not a lot between the two teams. [...] In 2011, England were fairly dominant [...] and England were fully deserving of their 19-26 victory. [...] England look threatening when they run the ball.

etc. etc.

You're looking for an insult where there isn't one.

EDIT: Just seen you're later comments. Fair enough, I understand the tone of this board can make people a bit confrontational. It's not my aim. I'm also not claiming to be objective. I do think Wales are the better team, marginally, due in no small part to the coaching staff they have (or perhaps is it all down to Gatland?). As much as Wales might look at England's player depth with envy, I still think Wales have, on the whole, a better 'first choice' 15 than England, whatever that is worth (when is everyone fit in modern Test rugby?). That said, I'm not trying to reduce England's wins against Wales to mere flukes, or simply due to Wales being 'not good enough on the day'. I've said for several years there is very little between England, Wales, and Ireland, and has been since about 2012. Wales I think fluctuate between greater highs and lows than the other two, and still have a big hurdle to overcome in the form of the SH teams. England seem more consistent than Wales, but have tended to lose all the important title winning games they have played since 2011. I struggle to see the vast changes between the rugby England have played in this 6N, and the rugby they played under Lancaster. Whether there's a change in mental strength and belief that will see them win games they had previously lost, who knows. Let's wait and see.

Edit: to add to this (as it's what we all want right? The only good dead horse is a beaten dead horse) but they way you cut and pasted those quotes kind of sums up how easy it is the change the context of the written word by changing what comes before or after it.

For example, "England are, after all, a good team, and there's not a lot between the two teams." sounds really positive. However, add in the "There are a few anomalies in here, or rather, times where Wales don't get it right." and it comes across much more condescending or a backhanded compliment.

"In 2011, England were fairly dominant" and " England were fully deserving of their 19-26 victory" again sounds very positive but when the meat in the sandwich is "This was a poor Welsh side, the worst of the Gatland era," it once again reads very differently.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Find one quote where I said he's the successor to Greenwood. Just one. When you don't come back here and apologise.

I will not apologise to you. You have not apologised to me when you have been wrong.

I don't show too much humility but on some rare occasions I admit I am wrong. You don't.

I am not going to trawl for posts two years ago. If you want to then be my guest.

I will have gained nothing. I just find it odd that you are now seem to be denying that you were a supporter of Twelvetrees. Each to their own I guess.

Griff that's the thing. I spend as much time if not more so arguing with English fans rather than other nationalities.

Because the quote doesn't exist. I'll never deny I would have chosen Twelvetrees in an England team, making you rubbish about him being Greenwoods successor is beneath you beshocked. Suck it up, admit you're lying or delete the post.

It was me that said it...

Jimpy not now, no, the 36 hype bandwagon has been and gone. Just mentioning that he was a player who was talked up as a new prospective 12.

no 7 & 1/2 I will be fair. You might not have called him Greenwood's successor - I will concede that but you've been a strong supporter of him in the past. Will you admit that?

The reason I mention 36 it's because finding a 12 who can take the shirt long term has become an England obsession.

Even hopes for Harry Mallinder.

The relevance to England vs Wales is Roberts vs Farrell - Roberts has been the first choice 12 for Wales for years. Farrell is part of the revolving door of 12s.

We've had other 12s in the past like Hape,Flutey and Noon - who could forget those players?

Flood a 10 shunted to 12....

Thankyou beshocked. Yes I said I'd pick Twelvetrees as the best option of an ok bunch of 12s, used the word stop gap a few times as well.The Mallinder thing was a joke for future reference.

I think we should move Big Phil Vickery to 12...he could do a job there...

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think we should move Big Phil Vickery to 12...he could do a job there...

I've heard his retired.

I do remember there being a fap fest over 36 from many different posters on many different sites.

And no, Im not going to trawl through them

If LCD comes on with enough time for an England line out or two we're stuffed. He is an impact player, but not in a good way.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:If LCD comes on with enough time for an England line out or two we're stuffed. He is an impact player, but not in a good way.

Ive just said exactly the same thing on the other thread. His throwing is below the standard required.

Mind the rest of his game is no problem at all....he'll be a good impact player.

TightHEAD wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think we should move Big Phil Vickery to 12...he could do a job there...

I've heard his retired.

Dont be silly....he cant have.

beshocked wrote:miaow whilst there is some credibility to what you say Billy and B.Youngs being absent for most of the 2nd half was bad for England when you take into account that a lot of the good work for England was done by them.

Of course, but do you not see the trend that England put a lot into the first half, only to find Wales are still able to claw their way back into the game? I wouldn't look at factors like two players going off in isolation; Wales had turned the tide of the game for most of the second half. Even with the momentum switches that England benefited from (I'm talking about the timing of the injuries here in that they alleviated growing Welsh pressure on England, rather than simply the injuries themselves), they couldn't put the game to bed, because Wales kept running the ball back at them, and England were forced to concede penalties at the breakdown. With all due respect, I don't think Youngs or Vunipola would have made that much difference had they stayed on,

beshocked wrote:You mention 2008 - England were hit hard by injuries -  Only Wales get hit hard by injuries of course.

England: Balshaw; Sackey, Tindall, Flood, Strettle; Wilkinson, Gomarsall; Sheridan, Regan, Vickery (capt), Shaw, Borthwick, Haskell, Moody, Narraway, Rees.
Replacements: , Vainikolo for Strettle (13), Rees for Moody (14), Kay for Rees (41), Mears for Regan (58), Cipriani for Tindall (64) Stevens for Vickery (69).
Not Used: Wigglesworth.


That's the rule - only Wales can mention injuries.

That seems unnecessarily confrontational. As disrupting as two first half injuries are, I think it's fair to say the biggest loss would be bringing on Kay for Rees. In terms of injuries prior to selection, who else would you have put in that England side (don't try and judge it with the benefit of hindsight)? Or, who was a starter who would have played had they not been injured? It's very easy to ridicule Vainikolo as yet another failed experiment of English wingers being hyped up and discarded every six months, but at the time, was he not a promising selection? Several other factors came into that game; Alix Popham coming on as a replacement changed the game immeasurably. England 'lost it' in the second half, it permeated through the whole team, and even Jonny Wilkinson was having a shocker, throwing loose passes to nobody. In part, this was due to England being a team in transition (could argue they were between 05-10, but that's another matter), but also because the new Welsh tenacity under Gatland forced pressure upon them in that second half. Despite being Gatland's first game, it was a sign of things to come.

It's fair to say that injuries may have contributed to England's demise, but then why reduce solely to this? Incidentally, England have the greatest strength in depth than any other NH team. That's perhaps why the Welsh complaints are stronger than the English. If we lose out two first choice outside halves, we're left with Anscombe, Patchell, or Sam Davies, a promising rookie, none of whom inspire anything near confidence. England could call on Cipriani, Freddie Burns...I'm sure there are many others I'm neglecting to mention. You could make such a comparison in almost every position.

beshocked wrote:You effectively say that the 6 nations 2015 was thrown away.... okay....

England had a lead that they should have not relinquished in the RWC. [...]

I hope you appreciate the irony here. Wales had an 8 point half time lead in the 6N, yet lost the game without scoring a single point in the second half. England had a 7 point half time lead in the RWC, yet continued to score points in the second half. However, the latter is given far more lip service as England 'throwing it away'. Why? Of the two games, Wales can be more disappointed the lost the game. They dropped off considerably from almost the first kick in the second half. It was well documented that Wales did little rugby training prior to that 6N, working on fitness with a view to the RWC. It is my belief that Gatland, though obviously hoping to win, wanted to reveal as little as possible of his RWC plans; he did this by making Wales hound every English breakdown, giving Wales a strong half time lead, in the hope that England would come out and play in the second half. Which they did. In a manner largely similar to how they played the RWC game. Which Wales won. Though it would perhaps be fair to dismiss this as it's entirely guesswork, Gatland has proved a wily coach who gets results, and there's little doubt that Wales held back in the lat 6N, using the Summer to develop and introduce new tactics for the RWC. Again, of the two, why is the RWC game alluded to as 'thrown away', when making the same claim for the 6N game-where England had a 2 point lead until the last few minutes- is apparently a ridiculous notion?

beshocked wrote:England should be beating Wales at home. To not do so is not good enough.

I understand this is the language of partisan passion, and I'll take it as such. Surely you're not suggesting that England should be expected to beat Wales? That to lose is somehow unacceptable, given the two teams' relative performances over the last few seasons? There's very little difference between the two teams, and home advantage doesn't seem to make a huge difference to the result of this game. Don't be too hard on or demanding of England.

beshocked wrote:Wales are a good side but they just like England aren't as good as the tri nations. Wales aren't an unstoppable juggernaut - you scraped past us in the RWC by exposing two out of position centres but have lost to us in the last two 6 nations.

You don't have to be unstoppable and/or the All Blacks (what's the difference...) to be hard for England to beat. I think the RWC win was down to more than simply 'two out of position centres'. I went into depth on that on my first post. England lost for more reasons than simply who the coach selected in the midfield. Don't try and hound Lancaster, or retrospectively denigrate his record with England. He was a decent coach, got you playing decent rugby, and introduced a good number of players to Test rugby. If you treat Eddie Jones as the anti-Lancaster, as the hero who's going to change the way England play (and the results they get) exponentially, I think you may end up disappointed.

beshocked wrote:In 2013 and 2015 Wales tries have come from exposing out of position players - Brown in 2013 and Farrell plus Barritt in the RWC. Had a field day vs Wood at 8 in 2013.

One of Wales' most potent weapon vs England with Gatland in charge - out of position players - it's why I fear Roberts vs Farrell the most and the backrow battle.

We know that England have been less effective at exposing Wales' out of position backline as was shown in the RWC.

Again, this is far too simplistic. England are currently playing, and winning, without an openside flanker. Why is there no mention of this out of position player when you win? Equally, Wales had plenty of out of position players in the RWC. They had a scrum half on the wing. I'm sure you know what he did. If Mike Brown, a full back, is unable to make a decent shot of playing on the wing, then that's a really poor excuse of a player. The 2013 win was built on a dominant scrum, and ultimately England cracked under pressure. It was somewhat unique in the way the pressure kept on amplifying- the crowd undoubtedly played a part, as did England's inexperience in being in such a position, with the GS within their grasp- but to reduce it to two players shifting position from their usual place in a rugby team is a shocking rewriting of history, as well as not giving Wales the credit they deserve.

Ultimately, however, exposing out of position players/mismatches that occur from multiple phases of possession is exactly the aim of the so called 'Warrenball'. In both those games, it proved effective. In some ways, you're supporting what I'm saying. I'd say that Farrell is as well suited to 12 as he is to 10, if not more so. That feels almost irrelevant. The question you have to ask is why are England not able to exploit supposed mismatches? Why were England not able to isolate and expose out of position players? Why is Liam Williams, a full back, able to play well on the wing at Test level, and Mike Brown cannot? Why can Sam Warburton play 6 well at Test level, but Tom Wood cannot play 8? I think your point in no way addresses the wider issues, in fact it may support them, that Wales' tactics have been successfully implemented on the pitch, but they're not quite given the credit for it.

beshocked wrote:You get the sense this is something of an anticlimax; considering Wales and England have played each other three times in just over twelve months, this game feels like it has the 'least' riding on it, which is odd considering there is a title on the line.


Got your excuse lined up if you lose I see. A likely title winning match isn't anti climatic....

Do you not feel like it's a bit of an anticlimax? That the RWC was something of a peak, and we're now coming down the other side of the slope? Perhaps it's different for England going for a GS than it is for Wales, I don't know. I'd like to hear what other posters think about this, but for me, the sheer amount of Test rugby played in the last 12 months, and the 'hangover' from the World Cup, leaves this as a pale shadow of the other two games. Just look at the build up, the media hype, for the other two, and compare it to this one. As I said, what do other posters feel? Perhaps it's different for England, I don't know, evidently the way they went out of the RWC was very different to Wales, perhaps there's a sense of needing to atone for something. They also haven't won the titles Wales have in recent years, so there's a shot at silverware for players who haven't won any before.

HammerofThunor wrote:

miaow wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

What?

miaow wrote:England are, after all, a good team, and there's not a lot between the two teams. [...] In 2011, England were fairly dominant [...] and England were fully deserving of their 19-26 victory. [...] England look threatening when they run the ball.

etc. etc.

You're looking for an insult where there isn't one.

EDIT: Just seen you're later comments. Fair enough, I understand the tone of this board can make people a bit confrontational. It's not my aim. I'm also not claiming to be objective. I do think Wales are the better team, marginally, due in no small part to the coaching staff they have (or perhaps is it all down to Gatland?). As much as Wales might look at England's player depth with envy, I still think Wales have, on the whole, a better 'first choice' 15 than England, whatever that is worth (when is everyone fit in modern Test rugby?). That said, I'm not trying to reduce England's wins against Wales to mere flukes, or simply due to Wales being 'not good enough on the day'. I've said for several years there is very little between England, Wales, and Ireland, and has been since about 2012. Wales I think fluctuate between greater highs and lows than the other two, and still have a big hurdle to overcome in the form of the SH teams. England seem more consistent than Wales, but have tended to lose all the important title winning games they have played since 2011. I struggle to see the vast changes between the rugby England have played in this 6N, and the rugby they played under Lancaster. Whether there's a change in mental strength and belief that will see them win games they had previously lost, who knows. Let's wait and see.

Edit: to add to this (as it's what we all want right? The only good dead horse is a beaten dead horse) but they way you cut and pasted those quotes kind of sums up how easy it is the change the context of the written word by changing what comes before or after it.

For example, "England are, after all, a good team, and there's not a lot between the two teams." sounds really positive.  However, add in the "There are a few anomalies in here, or rather, times where Wales don't get it right." and it comes across much more condescending or a backhanded compliment.

"In 2011, England were fairly dominant" and " England were fully deserving of their 19-26 victory" again sounds very positive but when the meat in the sandwich is "This was a poor Welsh side, the worst of the Gatland era," it once again reads very differently.

Yeah, I'd say that's evidence that I'm not trying to be objective, that I'm only ever going to be able to write from a Welsh perspective. No harm intended.

England didn't cope with Youngs and Vunipola going off, Wales did with their injuries. The English pack, even without an openside, have had the better of the Welsh overall in the last few games. WC was just a group game, this is for a title (basically though possibly not mathematically).

I read a statistic that in the 6N, England & Wales have won exactly the same number of 6N games. Interesting.....and when England have had a chance to win the tourny their last game in the draw has generally been away and with a SH ref or Walsh.....

England have won 11 more games.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The English pack, even without an openside, have had the better of the Welsh overall in the last few games.

At the scrum, yes. Lineouts have been fairly even. I'd disagree at the breakdown. I'd say Wales had the edge in both the last 6N game, and the RWC.

No 7&1/2 wrote:WC was just a group game, this is for a title (basically though possibly not mathematically).

Haha, come on, be fair. Wasn't this regularly called 'the biggest game ever played between these two teams'? Don't rewrite it as almost inconsequential. Both teams knew it was perhaps win or bust, as beating Australia would be a harder hurdle (as it proved for both teams).

Recwatcher16 wrote:I read a statistic that in the 6N, England & Wales have won exactly the same number of 6N games. Interesting.....and when England have had a chance to win the tourny their last game in the draw has generally been away and with a SH ref or Walsh.....

I don't think that's true though? Is it?

My figure is 55 to England, 44 to Wales?

oh sorry Seven

I'm not rewriting it, just that it wasn't a one off, England still had the chance to progress. Lose this adn it's extremely unlikely and probably another 2nd.

I just can't agree with the recent games, last 2 6Ns have been fairly comfortable wins for England and despite the fact I think Saturdays game is bigger the WC was so disappointing as again I felt we were on top in the pack but on that day went for a turgid backline incapable of taking advantage of good ball. Each to their own eh.

Hey at least it confirms I can count.

I think it's that they've won the same number of games against each other in the 6N (and precursors). It's been close for a while and I don't think either have pulled away recently.

Yeah, each to their own. It certainly felt special in the build up and aftermath of the game.

It's a special occasion certainly, no where near a peak for either team though. It's a group game.

Come on man, see sense! It mas more than just 'a group game'. The RWC is a greater prize than the 6N. The unique composition of the group meant it likely that one of the two- or even Australia- would not make the quarter finals. It was effectively a knock out match in the second game each side played.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11886828/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-This-is-the-biggest-England-v-Wales-encounter-in-history.html

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/10004299/england-v-wales-sam-warburton-preparing-for-8220biggest-game-of-his-career8221

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/england-v-wales-sir-clive-10140262

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/rugby/world-cup/2015/george-north-relishing-wales-return-against-england_sto4926029/story.shtml

etc etc

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

When is it ever Wales Vs Mikey? I agree and disagree with a number of posters regardless of nationality. What I've noticed however is that only the English act like angry children when you disagree with their view. I'm assuming this comment is just another one of those stupid, whingebag comments.

I agree miaow the WC is better to win than the 6Ns but a 6Ns is better to win than a WC group game.

miaow wrote:Do you not feel like it's a bit of an anticlimax? That the RWC was something of a peak, and we're now coming down the other side of the slope? Perhaps it's different for England going for a GS than it is for Wales, I don't know. I'd like to hear what other posters think about this, but for me, the sheer amount of Test rugby played in the last 12 months, and the 'hangover' from the World Cup, leaves this as a pale shadow of the other two games. Just look at the build up, the media hype, for the other two, and compare it to this one. As I said, what do other posters feel? Perhaps it's different for England, I don't know, evidently the way they went out of the RWC was very different to Wales, perhaps there's a sense of needing to atone for something. They also haven't won the titles Wales have in recent years, so there's a shot at silverware for players who haven't won any before.

The WC was a huge let down for English fans and this 6 Nations could potentially put that sorry episode behind us and have us looking to a brighter future, all of which pretty much rests on this game. The cupboard isn't exactly overflowing with silverware, we have a new coach - a lot hangs on the game with Wales. Under Lancaster, as a fan you'd be thinking 'It will all come right this game', and sometimes it did but that progress usually stalled soon after. We're still having those same 'It will all come right this game' thoughts, but maybe there's a bit more belief this time round, rather than hope. England aren't going to become a great team overnight, nor over a single 6 Nations tournament, but the expectancy is growing so a loss will be a big set back - possibly more so for the fans than the players.

Or maybe we just can't stand the thought of the Welsh ripping us a new one on 606 if we lose

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

When is it ever Wales Vs Mikey? I agree and disagree with a number of posters regardless of nationality. What I've noticed however is that only the English act like angry children when you disagree with their view. I'm assuming this comment is just another one of those stupid, whingebag comments.

Whatever. You do seem to have some good arguments with your fellow countrymen from time to time, that's all.

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

When is it ever Wales Vs Mikey? I agree and disagree with a number of posters regardless of nationality. What I've noticed however is that only the English act like angry children when you disagree with their view. I'm assuming this comment is just another one of those stupid, whingebag comments.

Whatever. You do seem to have some good arguments with your fellow countrymen from time to time, that's all.

Yeah, the Priestland Brigade for starters, but it doesn't descend into bitter hatred like it does when a few English posters disagree with me. And if you've watched a lot of Bath this season then wouldn't you agree with me on RP?

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

When is it ever Wales Vs Mikey? I agree and disagree with a number of posters regardless of nationality. What I've noticed however is that only the English act like angry children when you disagree with their view. I'm assuming this comment is just another one of those stupid, whingebag comments.

The smiley tends to suggest otherwise. It's why they are there. But don't let that stop you from blaming 'the English' for something one poster has said

This feels like the best 23 England have fielded for many a year. The bench is very good with many arguments about who should and should not start. That gives the whole thing an air of solidity from 1 - 23. The pack are pretty much all carrying well and the backs can score tries. If the backs can actually maximise the use of the ball they create then scores will flow. (Should have scored at least 2 tries in 1st half against Ireland). However, they haven't really put their foot on the gas yet in this tourney and it may not happen against a very good defensive Wales but the potential is there in spades. These are new exciting times for England. They must start to deliver.

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

When is it ever Wales Vs Mikey? I agree and disagree with a number of posters regardless of nationality. What I've noticed however is that only the English act like angry children when you disagree with their view. I'm assuming this comment is just another one of those stupid, whingebag comments.

Do you know what irony means?

Jimpy wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

When is it ever Wales Vs Mikey? I agree and disagree with a number of posters regardless of nationality. What I've noticed however is that only the English act like angry children when you disagree with their view. I'm assuming this comment is just another one of those stupid, whingebag comments.

Do you know what irony means?

Is it not similar to bronzey and goldy?

Whoa. Don't go near that irony thing. People start accusing people of having a different sexual agenda.

Jimpy wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

When is it ever Wales Vs Mikey? I agree and disagree with a number of posters regardless of nationality. What I've noticed however is that only the English act like angry children when you disagree with their view. I'm assuming this comment is just another one of those stupid, whingebag comments.

Do you know what irony means?

Yawn, you say the same thing to everyone.

No 7&1/2 wrote:England have won 11 more games.

Don't know where you got that b*llocks from..

Head to Head (All games)
Played 127
Wal W 57
Eng W 58
Draws 12

5 Nations
Played 103
Wal W 48
Eng W 43
Draws 12

6 Nations
Played 16
Wal W 6
Eng W 10
Draws 0

RWC
Played 3
Wal W 2
Eng W 1
Draws 0

RWC Warm-ups
Played 4
Wal W 1
Eng W 3
Draws 0

So where you get 11 England wins ahead of Welsh ones is rubbish... Propaganda maybe  

No 7&1/2 wrote:I agree miaow the WC is better to win than the 6Ns but a 6Ns is better to win than a WC group game.

I feel we've gone off track a little. I said it was strange that, although there is tangibly 'more on the line' in this upcoming match, the WC game had a far greater build up, and felt far more tense going into it. You cannot remove the result from its contingent context; had Wales gone on the win the WC, that game would indeed be even more massive. That was what was at stake in the build up. As they did not, and the manner in which they sort of slid out of the tournament, it appears to have been downplayed somewhat. I might also question why English fans might want to reduce the importance of said game?

Hoonercat wrote:The WC was a huge let down for English fans and this 6 Nations could potentially put that sorry episode behind us and have us looking to a brighter future, all of which pretty much rests on this game.

I think that probably sums it up. Although, I would say, don't put too much importance on this game/tournament. If England win the 6N, as they look like the may well do, it will be good for them to have finally got across the line, but it's only the first stepping stone to where they want to be (RWC contenders, surely? Which emphasises my point above.).

Equally, if they lose to Wales, or don't win the 6N somehow, don't get too downhearted/look for scapegoats as the media/RFU usually does. You certainly did in the aftermath of the WC, and it appears there was a consensus that it was Lancaster's 'schoolteacher' approach to discipline and environment that was the problem, which is ridiculous. The RFU opted for the in vogue coach, the anthithesis to Lancaster in that he is a bit of a gobby Antipodean. I'm withholding my judgement on him for at least the next season or two. Had England appointed Jake White, I think they would have almost guaranteed themselves at least two 6N titles, if not more, but the next RWC. He would have played to England's traditional strengths, and got them over the line. I always thought Eddie Jones may win you more one off games against the SH, but as a Welsh fan, I'm glad they hired Jones rather than White.

I'm going a little off topic here...erm...England are rubbish and Mike Brown's a cheat!!1

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/england-v-wales-tactical-battle-11014763

Interesting article.

For me, it's not downplaying that game as there was still a good chance for England to qualify against Aus. It's more to do with this game on Saturday being the actual match where the title is decided. That's not to talk Frances chances down too much but it's much less likely for them. The context of the matches is the key for me, WC there was the 2nd chance, there is no 2nd chance here.

"I might also question why English fans might want to reduce the importance of said game?.."

Well its not like Wales have ever won the ruddy RWC is it.

Wales fans constantly reduce the importance of England actually winning the thing.

miaow B.Youngs and Billy.V were two of our most influential players, even you acknowledge Billy was struggling with injury, of course you say it was to England's advantage as a timeout but still. At least a mention.

Sorry I don't buy the argument that it was a Welsh tactic to let England get a lead then reel them in and win with superior fitness.

You say Wales turned the tide in the 2nd half, England were still 7 points with 10 minutes to go. Not good enough to not close it.


You didn't lose Biggar though did you? Probably the players who have been the beating heart of that Welsh team were all fully fit.

At home yes England should be beating Wales.

In 2008, it a mix of England imploding and Wales fighting back, just like the RWC. England should have closed out both games.

Wales haven't been hard for England to beat - see 2011,2014 and 2015. It's not as if Wales are like NZ or the Springboks. Good side but haven't had that mental hold over England. The win over England in the RWC gives Wales currently bragging rights but a loss would give the edge back to England.

Lancaster was not a decent coach, he was a coach who won nothing, there are worse coaches out there but he wasn't good enough.

Not too many teams have exploited the lack of an openside except for Australia noticeably in the RWC but it's a weakness we all know about.

That's something that Wales are indeed good at - exposing out of position players and did a good job of patching up their backs.


A potential title winning game isn't anticlimatic. There hasn't been media build up because Eddie Jones has rightly shut his mouth. Focus on doing the talking the pitch is what I want to see. If Wales lose it will be the 3rd loss in a row to England in the 6 nations, would that not matter to you?

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me, it's not downplaying that game as there was still a good chance for England to qualify against Aus. The context of the matches is the key for me, WC there was the 2nd chance, there is no 2nd chance here.

I've heard this a lot from English fans/friends, especially when trying to rile them up about Wales knocking England out, rather than Australia. I have to disagree. It was always far more likely for England to beat Wales than it was for them to beat Australia, and I think the players knew that. You could sort of tell, even in those dying minutes, with the desperation with which they chased the win.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Is this the England v England thread now?!

Makes a change from Wales vs Mikey

When is it ever Wales Vs Mikey? I agree and disagree with a number of posters regardless of nationality. What I've noticed however is that only the English act like angry children when you disagree with their view. I'm assuming this comment is just another one of those stupid, whingebag comments.

Do you know what irony means?

Yawn, you say the same thing to everyone.

Ah.... I see that you don't.

englandglory4ever wrote:This feels like the best 23 England have fielded for many a year. The bench is very good with many arguments about who should and should not start. That gives the whole thing an air of solidity from 1 - 23. The pack are pretty much all carrying well and the backs can score tries. If the backs can actually maximise the use of the ball they create then scores will flow. (Should have scored at least 2 tries in 1st half against Ireland). However, they haven't really put their foot on the gas yet in this tourney and it may not happen against a very good defensive Wales but the potential is there in spades. These are new exciting times for England. They must start to deliver.

I agree that the bench has the potential to make a big difference, it also has the potential to suck big time if the game is going against us. There are some very inexperienced (Internationally) players on that bench and a centre who's apparently only got 20 minutes in him and hasn't played for England since 2014.
Guardian has Itoje to start, I'll be surprised if he does. He's a better bench option that Launchbury in a game that could be very attritional in the forwards. Launchbury and Clifford on the bench against Wales doesn't strike me as a better option than Itoje and Clifford.