6N 2017: Italy v Wales, 5 February

ITALY v WALES
5 February 2017
15:00 CET (14:00 GMT)
Stadio Olimpico, Rome

Live on DMAX, ITV, RTE, FR2, S4C, BBC (H)

Referee: JP Doyle (England)
Touch judges: Johnny Lacey (Ireland) & Craig Maxwell-Keys (England)
TMO: Rowan Kitt (England)

A. Head to Head

24 Played 24
21 Won 2
1 Drawn 1
2 Lost 21
815 Points 400

B. Recent Form

19 March 2016
Principality Stadium, Cardiff
67 – 14 to Wales

5 September 2015
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
23 – 19 to Wales

21 March 2015
Stadio Olimpico, Rome
20 – 61 to Wales

1 February 2014
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
23 – 15 to Wales

23 February 2013
Stadio Olimpico, Rome
9 – 26 to Wales

10 March 2012
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
24 – 3 to Wales

C. Teams

ITALY

15-Edoardo Padovani; 14-Giulio Bisegni, 13-Tommaso Benvenuti, 12-Luke McLean 11-Giovanbattista Venditti; 10-Carlo Canna, 9-Edoardo Gori; 1-Andrea Lovotti, 2-Ornel Gega, 3-Lorenzo Cittadini, 4-Marco Fuser, 5-George Biagi, 6-Abraham Steyn, 7-Maxime Mata M'Banda, 8-Sergio Parisse (captain)

Replacements: 16-Leonardo Ghiraldini, 17-Sami Panico, 18-Pietro Ceccarelli, 19-Joshua Furno, 20-Francesco Minto, 21-Giorgio Bronzini, 22-Tommaso Allan, 23-Michele Campagnaro

WALES

15-Leigh Halfpenny; 14-George North, 13-Jonathan Davies, 12-Scott Williams, 11-Liam Williams; 10-Dan Biggar, 9-Rhys Webb; 1-Nicky Smith, 2-Ken Owens, 3-Samson Lee, 4-Jake Ball, 5-Alun Wyn Jones (captain); 6-Sam Warburton, 7-Justin Tipuric, 8-Ross Moriarty

Replacements: 16-Scott Baldwin, 17-Rob Evans, 18-Tomas Francis, 19-Cory Hill, 20-James King, 21-Gareth Davies, 22-Sam Davies, 23-Jamie Roberts

I know which one has the better looking mascot.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I know which one has the better looking mascot.

Well you are from NZ...

lostinwales wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I know which one has the better looking mascot.

Well you are from NZ...

 You got to be quick LIW, Last thing you want is to get stuck with an ugly sheep.

Howley's trying to get the roof closed for all games. At first I thought 'please shut up about the damn roof'. I'm sick of hearing about it. But actually, reading into it more this is perhaps the inevitable can of worms that the 6N organisers have opened by introducing bonus points. Howley has stated that if we now need to go for bonus points then all teams will want to play in the best possible conditions. I personally feel that the roof should generally be left open for rugby and used only for concerts, etc. but I think he has a point (for once). Meddling with the points scoring of the comp will mean teams wanting to meddle with the environmental factors where they can too.

But regards the roof being shut for all games.

Surely rugby as all ways been an out side sport not an in side sport.

And give the bonus point system, surely this would give Wales an advantage over all other teams, because they will be playing in the dry when other teams will/may not be.

Sounds a bit like an excuse for not playing running rugby/looking to score tries from the start. Can't see anything but a scraped result against Italy at best, so that England game is beginning to look like a defining game for the rest of the tournament. We shook them mentally at Twickenham last year despite them embarrassing us for 55 minutes, Howley knows that having the roof shut is another element of intimidation.

However, as I said, it does sound a lot like getting the excuses in early.

majesticimperialman wrote:But regards the roof being shut for all games.

Surely rugby as all ways been an out side sport not an in side sport.

And give the bonus point system, surely this would give Wales an advantage over all other teams, because they will be playing in the dry when other teams will/may not be.

I think it's swings and roundabouts. Before the tournament I'm sure most non-Welsh fans will say that the roof should be open, it's an open air game, etc. And I tend to agree. But I guarantee you there will be moaning from some fans if the roof is open and the weather is awful and it affects their teams ability to get an important bonus point that means they lose the tournament! They'll be calling for it to be shut so they can chase the tries.

Surely nobody who agrees with BPs will have an issue with the roof being closed ?

Is there anybody else other than me who is not confident about this game ?

I have a horrible feeling that Howley will get it all totally wrong, and Italy will sneek this one.

I get why Howley has done it too. It would be preferable to just let Wales have the choice and there not being a sideshow before a few of the games.

It wouldn't be so bad, if Wales were consistent at deciding when they want it open or shut, as I am sure they have chosen certain games where they have preferred to have it open.

What a surprise, as soon as risca comments, I get the red bar. I thought we were told we had to ignore each other risca ?

Do you know what ? Forget this place, I am done with the nonsense of it all.

RiscaGame wrote:I get why Howley has done it too. It would be preferable to just let Wales have the choice and there not being a sideshow before a few of the games.

It wouldn't be so bad, if Wales were consistent at deciding when they want it open or shut, as I am sure they have chosen certain games where they have preferred to have it open.

Spot on. When we were better (i.e. a few seasons ago) we wanted it shut as we were scoring lots of tries and confident in our ability. Then when we were going downhill and teams like England were getting better and scoring more tries they were asking for it to be shut (Lancaster I seem to remember), and we were responding "we want it open to play in the elements like rugby should be played"! Definitely selective by us.

I could only find one example of it and that was for an Ireland game. But the less of an issue it is, the better.

Can't wait to see what team is selected for this. I wonder if the usual have started impressing in training already today.

miaow wrote:That England game is beginning to look like a defining game for the rest of the tournament. We shook them mentally at Twickenham last year despite them embarrassing us for 55 minutes

Yes, they were so shaken they went the rest of the year unbeaten.

LordDowlais wrote:Is there anybody else other than me who is not confident about this game ?

I have a horrible feeling that Howley will get it all totally wrong, and Italy will sneek this one.

I'm not confident at all for this one.

I'd be very surprised if we lost to Italy - Scotland yes but Italy is little too pessimistic, even for me. We didn't shine during the AIs but we were no where as bad as some make out.

I'm going to be betting we finish 5th and 6th, with this game the only one I am not pretty certain we will lose.

I know that when the Millennium Stadium was built, the rules for closing the roof were that both teams had to agree to it, is that still the case?

That always seemed a bit ridiculous to me... surely as the home team, Wales should have the final say. I get that it may seen unfair, but is it really any more of an advantage than just being the team that are playing at home? Surely that decision should belong to the home team...

Noble-Surfer wrote:I know that when the Millennium Stadium was built, the rules for closing the roof were that both teams had to agree to it, is that still the case?

That always seemed a bit ridiculous to me... surely as the home team, Wales should have the final say. I get that it may seen unfair, but is it really any more of an advantage than just being the team that are playing at home? Surely that decision should belong to the home team...

It's still the case as far as I know.  Both have to agree.  Agreement has not always been reached in the past.

I can sort of understand closing the roof if it's monsoon conditions as it does invariably spoil the game for everyone.  But a bit of drizzle or grey skies should mean it's kept open, IMO.  It annoys me how much the roof thing detracts from the focus of the actual game, and is often used in the mind games going into it.  Although I appreciate the irony in me saying this as the person who brought it up in the first place!

Yes, it's still the case that both teams must agree.

As I saw in a quote by Cement Head previously, there is nothing (in theory) to stop Wales from keeping the roof closed and saying it was broken and wouldn't open anyway.

RiscaGame wrote:Yes, it's still the case that both teams must agree.

As I saw in a quote by Cement Head previously, there is nothing (in theory) to stop Wales from keeping the roof closed and saying it was broken and wouldn't open anyway.

I can imagine Gats doing that actually, if and when it suited!

I always think that the atmosphere is better when the roof is closed, so I would keep it closed.

Lots of NFL stadiums have permanently closed roofs.

chris_501 wrote:I always think that the atmosphere is better when the roof is closed, so I would keep it closed.

Lots of NFL stadiums have permanently closed roofs.

It's all well and good until they start setting the fireworks off. It's a nightmare with the closed roof and about £1000 worth of fireworks going up and nowhere for the smoke to go.

munkian wrote:Surely nobody who agrees with BPs will have an issue with the roof being closed ?

Presumably the away team? Because of the potential added intensity from the watching crowd when it's closed is quite clearly a threat to the away team's performance.

Also, I think it's a load of sheet that the roof being closed aids the playing conditions. It's all clammy when it's shut and cold outside, with this misty, dewy atmosphere in the stadium making the ball 'greasy'. Add in a huge firework display before kick off, and I imagine you're just adding to the condensed air and breath that adds moisture etc. to the environment in the ground.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

miaow wrote:That England game is beginning to look like a defining game for the rest of the tournament. We shook them mentally at Twickenham last year despite them embarrassing us for 55 minutes

Yes, they were so shaken they went the rest of the year unbeaten.

I'm talking about in the game itself. They had a wobble in France as well. They'll be a lot mentally tougher this time around, but letting two flawed teams back into a winning position late on in the game when they really should have put each to bed was a sign of weakness. You could see England players shrinking, and had George North not been incorrectly adjudged to have been in touch, who knows, we could have had a repeat result of the RWC. I also distinctly remember Haskell looked terrified on the bench in Paris. This time last year they were very unsure of their ability to finish teams. They'll be a lot more comfortable with the favourites tag now, but they're far from invincible to my mind. They're like the inverse of us: able to put a big score down early, but not able/willing to choke the game and slow it down in the final quarter. We're more than willing and able to choke the game and slow it down in the first 60, and as long as we're not too far off on the scoreboard, can come back brilliantly in the last quarter (so long as we don't get the lead back too early and actually have to defend it for more than a few minutes). Two pretty fragile rugby teams to my mind that has been a fairly longstanding thing.

miaow wrote:

munkian wrote:Surely nobody who agrees with BPs will have an issue with the roof being closed ?

Presumably the away team? Because of the potential added intensity from the watching crowd when it's closed is quite clearly a threat to the away team's performance.

They're only watching themselves on the big screen.

Paaaaaas it to Shaaaaaaaaaaane

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

miaow wrote:

munkian wrote:Surely nobody who agrees with BPs will have an issue with the roof being closed ?

Presumably the away team? Because of the potential added intensity from the watching crowd when it's closed is quite clearly a threat to the away team's performance.

They're only watching themselves on the big screen.

*watching the queue at the bar

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Is there anybody else other than me who is not confident about this game ?

I have a horrible feeling that Howley will get it all totally wrong, and Italy will sneek this one.

I'm not confident at all for this one.

Sadly, I am confident about this one. I am confident that we will have chances to win it, but leave with a loss.

Are Wales at home for this game?

And is that why Howley is asking for the roof to ,be closed?

majesticimperialman wrote:Are Wales at home for this game?

And is that why Howley is asking for the roof to ,be closed?

No and no.

The clue is in the title

His trolling game is very poor today, must try harder.

It's my first game in Rome, so looking forward to us starting with a bang (if only), but we do look like we have a pretty settled pack with maybe hooker the only position with no strong candidate.

chris_501 wrote:It's my first game in Rome, so looking forward to us starting with a bang (if only), but we do look like we have a pretty settled pack with maybe hooker the only position with no strong candidate.

This is certainly a big game for North, if he doesn't find some form here he needs to be dropped or at least benched.

Is the back row settled? I think we've got a few options and combinations, all pretty exciting:

6. Warburton
7. Tipuric
8. Moriarty/Faletau

6. Moriarty
7. Tipuric/Warburton
8. Faletau

In terms of the rest of the team as well:

Rob Evans and Samson Lee start. If Francis does well off the bench, I wouldn't mind him starting against England, he had a good Autumn. Ken Owens to make it a Scarlets front row? Or Scott Baldwin? Seems very 50:50 to me, I'd be more tempted to start Baldwin with a view to England, as I'd rather have Ken Owens coming off the bench to make an impression in what should be a tight game than Baldwin. Therefore, give Baldwin the run out in Italy.

AWJ and...Charteris? Jake Ball's been playing well, but seems to be overlooked, in favour of Cory Hill who- although he performed well in the Autumn- is a long way from a proven Test level player.

Webb starts, regardless of match fitness, Gareth Davies on the bench. Aled Davies should be nowhere near the squad. Biggar starts, but if he's not getting the backline going, get Sam Davies on before the 75th minute.

I'd have Scott Williams at 12, and Jon Davies at 13 with the proviso that he doesn't play against England if he doesn't perform well. It'll be Roberts at 12 and Scott at 13.

Liam Williams 15, Halfpenny 14, Steff Evans 11. If there's a game to blood him this 6Ns, this is it. I see no harm in bringing North off the bench from #23. Unfortunately, as he is "fit", it would be too big a call to have that half measure, you either play him or he's not fit. So, he'll start.

miaow wrote:AWJ and...Charteris? Jake Ball's been playing well, but seems to be overlooked, in favour of Cory Hill who- although he performed well in the Autumn- is a long way from a proven Test level player.

If Cory Hill 'performed well in the autumn' - at Test level - then doesn't that make him a 'proven Test level player'?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

miaow wrote:AWJ and...Charteris? Jake Ball's been playing well, but seems to be overlooked, in favour of Cory Hill who- although he performed well in the Autumn- is a long way from a proven Test level player.

If Cory Hill 'performed well in the autumn' - at Test level - then doesn't that make him a 'proven Test level player'?

This.

He performed well I thought .

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

miaow wrote:AWJ and...Charteris? Jake Ball's been playing well, but seems to be overlooked, in favour of Cory Hill who- although he performed well in the Autumn- is a long way from a proven Test level player.

If Cory Hill 'performed well in the autumn' - at Test level - then doesn't that make him a 'proven Test level player'?

Not to my mind. He did "well" (i.e. didn't show himself up on the step up in standard, rather than playing "Test level well") against weak versions of Japan, Argentina, and South Africa. He was solid. Did the basics. Carried straight, maintained the ball, and looked like he was relatively in control and not flusteed, but did nothing miraculous to suggest that once the novelty and focus of winning his first caps subsides, he is talented enough to maintain and (more importantly) improve on those first showings, because frankly playing for Wales should mean you're capable of more.

To me, a proven Test level player is someone who doesn't look out of place against England or Ireland in the Six Nations, or the SANZAR teams, i.e. teams that are equal to or better than us. Perhaps there's some ambiguity behind my phrasing, but there are "Test matches" and there are Test matches.

Cory Hill needs to play enough games and look adequate against proper opposition for Wales (i.e. like Jake Ball has done) to be considered a reliable Test match player for Wales; at least by my definition, you of course are welcome to have your own. As someone who doesn't exactly stand out at Pro12 level, until he's done this, I think it's a fair thing to say I'm not sure if he's that standard, at least not yet.

Talk about nitpicking though. Jebus.

This is a tough game to predict. The temptation is to assume we'll struggle because we've not been setting the world alight for a while and we're traditionally slow starters. However, our last two 6 nations games against Italy have seen the floodgates open: 20-61 away in Rome in 2015 (that awesome super Saturday where everyone had to get cricket scores) and 67-14 last year at home. Have Italy improved significantly over the last few years to not only reduce that score line but to actually reverse the result and pick up a win? Or will it be our slow start to the tournament that ultimately does for us?

The other thing is that although we're all doom and gloom, and I'd never want to say an Autumn international Campaign where we narrowly beat Japan and got thumped by Aus was a success, but it was our most successful autumn campaign for a number of years! 3 wins out of 4 going into the 6N is not normal for us!

miaow wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

miaow wrote:AWJ and...Charteris? Jake Ball's been playing well, but seems to be overlooked, in favour of Cory Hill who- although he performed well in the Autumn- is a long way from a proven Test level player.

If Cory Hill 'performed well in the autumn' - at Test level - then doesn't that make him a 'proven Test level player'?

Not to my mind. He did "well" (i.e. didn't show himself up on the step up in standard, rather than playing "Test level well") against weak versions of Japan, Argentina, and South Africa. He was solid. Did the basics. Carried straight, maintained the ball, and looked like he was relatively in control and not flusteed, but did nothing miraculous to suggest that once the novelty and focus of winning his first caps subsides, he is talented enough to maintain and (more importantly) improve on those first showings, because frankly playing for Wales should mean you're capable of more.

To me, a proven Test level player is someone who doesn't look out of place against England or Ireland in the Six Nations, or the SANZAR teams, i.e. teams that are equal to or better than us. Perhaps there's some ambiguity behind my phrasing, but there are "Test matches" and there are Test matches.

Cory Hill needs to play enough games and look adequate against proper opposition for Wales (i.e. like Jake Ball has done) to be considered a reliable Test match player for Wales; at least by my definition, you of course are welcome to have your own. As someone who doesn't exactly stand out at Pro12 level, until he's done this, I think it's a fair thing to say I'm not sure if he's that standard, at least not yet.

Talk about nitpicking though. Jebus.

If only you'd chosen your words better in the first place, eh?

I think that shows how misleading raw statistics can be. I think this is the lowest ebb/expectations a Welsh team and its public has had going into the 6Ns for a long time. You could argue 2013 was worse, but I'd disagree. The 2011 RWC and '12 GS were still fresh, and there was an element of very bad luck to the successive losses to Australia, although the Samoa and Argentina games were pretty galling. The team was also a lot younger, and it was easier to be more forgiving, and as it proved in the subsequent tournament, it was somethinig of an 'artificial' low position for the team, as they then won the 6Ns. This time, the decline feels a bit more terminal, and with very little new blood coming through the rejuvinate the team or explain away errors or poor performances. I'd say this is as bad as it's been in the Gatland era, although perversely, I don't think this 6Ns will be as bad as the 2011 tournament (which was dreadful), despite the fact that every other team is about as strong as they've been for a long time.

That brings us on to Italy. I think we can forget scorelines like those mentioned Griff. There's a few things that explain them; the fact we're playing them last up, when they're shot and bruised and with nothing to really mentally inspire them; equally, we have no 'big score' to play for other than bonus points, which might be irrelevant if we don't hit the ground running; we're also pretty dire at the start of tournaments, and Italy are usually pretty good.

Italy have Connor O'Shea. We have Rob Howley. We're away from home. It would be devastating to lose, and I don't think we will, but I do think we'll probably come up short for it to be deemed a "good" win: I can see two tries for us, whilst probably conceding, but not doing enough to get the BP win, and I can also see us conceding against Italy. Goalkicking will win it for us, both in terms of better accuracy from our kicker(s), and our ability to "win" a few more in Italy's half.

Win by 9-12 points. If I had to choose a score...19-29.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:If only you'd chosen your words better in the first place, eh?

Sorry, I don't think I've even spoken to your before. Why so obtuse? Is it deliberate, or are you...well... ?

Now that mikey's not around it seems that some of you boys are missing the intranational baiting. Sad. You're the reasons we're seen as the village idiots by the rest of 606...

Why do Wales always get Italy first or last. Its unfair on the rest imho.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I know which one has the better looking mascot.

She looks about 14!










PSI.......

TightHEAD wrote:Why do Wales always get Italy first or last. Its unfair on the rest imho.

It is because, it makes them feel better when/if they win.

miaow wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:If only you'd chosen your words better in the first place, eh?

Sorry, I don't think I've even spoken to your before. Why so obtuse? Is it deliberate, or are you...well... ?

Now that mikey's not around it seems that some of you boys are missing the intranational baiting. Sad. You're the reasons we're seen as the village idiots by the rest of 606...

Calm down. It's not my fault you wrote something that didn't make sense.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Calm down. It's not my fault I misinterpreted something quite straightforward to understand.

It's all fairly easy to digest. What does proven mean? Beyond all reasonable doubt. What is Cory Hill doing well (in a Scott Andrews manner, i.e. not a good Pro12 player who stepped up and didn't look particularly out of place) against fairly weak (certainly underperforming) international opposition in his first four Test caps? Evidence, and evidence that is mitigated by circumstances and context.

There's a big difference between someone doing alright in their first few caps, and them being 'proven' reliable and up to the task against the 'usual' standard of international opposition. But thanks for trying Luckless. You could have hidden it better by addressing some of the other points in what was a reasoned and well constructured fairly substantial message, which is surely what we're here for. If you do, it gives the impression that you're trying to engage instead of dangling a fishing rod off into the ether then...