6N 2017: Wales v England, 11 February

First topic message reminder :


WALES v ENGLAND 
11 February 2017
KO:16:50 GMT
Principality Stadium, Cardiff

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

Referee: Jerome Garces (France)
Touch judges: Pascal Gauzere (France) & Nick Briant (New Zealand)
TMO: Glenn Newman (New Zealand)

A. Head to Head

129 Played 129
57 Won 60
12 Drawn 12
60 Lost 57
1,673 Points 1,518

B. Recent Form 

29 May 2016: Twickenham, London
27 – 13 to England
2016 mid-year rugby union internationals

12 March 2016: Twickenham, London
25 – 21 to England
2016 Six Nations Championship

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

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

WALES

15-Leigh Halfpenny, 14-George North, 13-Jonathan Davies, 12-Scott Williams, 11-Liam Williams, 10-Dan Biggar, 9-Rhys Webb; 1-Rob Evans, 2-Ken Owens, 3-Tomas Francis, 4-Jake Ball, 5-Alun Wyn Jones, 6-Sam Warburton, 7-Justin Tipuric; 8-Ross Moriarty.

Replacements: 16-Scott Baldwin, 17-Nicky Smith, 18-Samson Lee, 19-Cory Hill, 20-Taulupe Faletau, 21-Gareth Davies, 22-Sam Davies, 23-Jamie Roberts.

ENGLAND

15-Mike Brown, 14-Jack Nowell, 13-Jonathan Joseph, 12-Owen Farrell, 11-Elliot Daly, 10-George Ford, 9-Ben Youngs; 1-Joe Marler, 2-Dylan Hartley (captain), 3-Dan Cole, 4-Joe Launchbury, 5-Courtney Lawes, 6-Maro Itoje, 7-Jack Clifford, 8-Nathan Hughes.

Replacements: 16-Jamie George, 17-Matt Mullan, 18-Kyle Sinckler, 19-Tom Wood, 20-James Haskell, 21-Danny Care, 22-Ben Te'o, 23-Jonny May.

yappysnap agree about Launchbury. It's weird. He played well in autumn and looked completely at ease in the 2nd row and at other times he looks sluggish. He was like that in the 6 nations last year too though I think that was down to an illness.

Hughes is inexperienced and it shows, Billy wasn't instantly a hit at international level, he worked his way up to being one of England's most valuable players and obviously worked on his conditioning. Unfortunately we need Hughes to hit the ground running.

Lots of pressure has been heaped on our backrow. I just hope they can deliver. I think collectively they have the talent but it's a completely new backrow unit.

I'd rather see Lydiate lining up for Wales than seeing Tipuric and Warburton in the Wales team.

Don't know if anyone has full stats etc but even with Launchbury under par he still made more tackles and metres carried than Lawes though did miss one on Picamoles. I do think he's our best lock including Kruis.

At least Clifford brings more in terms of carrying than Wood which will be another outlet on Hughes. Billy is unique as he makes ground even when taking the ball static, Hughes needs to hit the line at pace. I just don't think we're using his skills too well currently.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't know if anyone has full stats etc but even with Launchbury under par he still made more tackles and metres carried than Lawes though did miss one on Picamoles. I do think he's our best lock including Kruis.

Haven't seen the stats but they can be misleading, especially carrying stats for second rows. You could make 5 tight carries for 20m and be doing a decent job, but if your partner gets the ball in a bit more space, he could do that in one go.

With tackles, Lawes made that one tackle on the scrum half that forced a turnover, and I think that impact can't be quantified in statistics.

Rucks hit is also another useful metric for second rows, and effectiveness of rucks hit is another one that's more difficult quantifying.

My opinion from the North stand, a few pints deep was Lawes offered more than Launchbury on the day. I think Launchbury is a better player generally though, but can't remember him having an impact on the day.

Yup it was Launchbury who was making the hard yards though. 2nd to Hughes in the pack. I'm crossing my fingers that him and Clifford replicate their form against Wales from before the tour to aus. Would go a long way towards taking us to a win.

yappysnap wrote:Interesting team. Funny how it's changed from this time last year too.

Concerns are as mentioned the backrow, will it have the skill and experience to compete effectively? I can't see Wales shutting Hughes down as effectively as France did last week tbh, Clifford might be starting a few months too early but he has some big performances under his belt at least. Itoje will be better for last week.

Two other questions, is it me or does launchbury seem to lose conditioning very quickly? Summer last year he also looked out of shape and played sluggishly.

And will we miss May's speed on the kick chase?

No issue with skill as Clifford is probably the most skilful back row player we have. It'll be the experience and perhaps physicality around the tackle/breakdown that's a concern.

Re:kick chase, I guess we'll be relying on Daly to sprint after them a lot. I can't see any reason whatsoever why that should be a worry...

Wales's team announcement delayed until 1pm, presumably someone (Faletau? Probably North and/or Biggar.) is right on the edge of being declared fit to play.

Pretty rare for a Test team to put out a back row, away from home, with only four caps between them.
Looks like a classic case of power versus pace, although Clifford is no slouch, as Scott Williams will testify from last May. Thus far, power has won out with Jones' game plan. Hughes was far too upright in contact last week, although admittedly the french back row were all no.8's, which made it harder to bust the gainline.

Two years ago in this fixture England pulled away in the second half and the introduction of Haskell and Wood will be key with Itoje moving to second row.
England with so many lineout options will surely target the welsh lineout and Smith and Lee will be squeezed in scrums whether starting or as replacements, although that remains a lottery to gain any reward.

Wales were very ponderous ball carriers against Italy, I wonder if they will persist with the same tactic for this game.

thomh wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Interesting team. Funny how it's changed from this time last year too.

Concerns are as mentioned the backrow, will it have the skill and experience to compete effectively? I can't see Wales shutting Hughes down as effectively as France did last week tbh, Clifford might be starting a few months too early but he has some big performances under his belt at least. Itoje will be better for last week.

Two other questions, is it me or does launchbury seem to lose conditioning very quickly? Summer last year he also looked out of shape and played sluggishly.

And will we miss May's speed on the kick chase?

No issue with skill as Clifford is probably the most skilful back row player we have. It'll be the experience and perhaps physicality around the tackle/breakdown that's a concern.

Re:kick chase, I guess we'll be relying on Daly to sprint after them a lot. I can't see any reason whatsoever why that should be a worry...

I thought England's kick-chase was a real weak point against France - but I'm sure the coaching team will have given them hell about it, and it's likely to be much improved this week.

Having said that, we have to make the most of it if it is as poor as it was last week. The back three have to be given licence to run it back if it's on.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Pretty rare for a Test team to put out a back row, away from home, with only four caps between them.
Looks like a classic case of power versus pace, although Clifford is no slouch, as Scott Williams will testify from last May. Thus far, power has won out with Jones' game plan. Hughes was far too upright in contact last week, although admittedly the french back row were all no.8's, which made it harder to bust the gainline.

Two years ago in this fixture England pulled away in the second half and the introduction of Haskell and Wood will be key with Itoje moving to second row.
England with so many lineout options will surely target the welsh lineout and Smith and Lee will be squeezed in scrums whether starting or as replacements, although that remains a lottery to gain any reward.

Wales were very ponderous ball carriers against Italy, I wonder if they will persist with the same tactic for this game.

Problem we had with Italy was that Biggar was too deep so we weren't breaking any lines, changed a bit when Sam came on.

It doesn't help that our front-five forwards never run on to the ball either. They barely make ground and they hardly tie anyone in.

Looked to me that Sam Davies completely bypassed his forwards and just went wide to the backs, which you can do in the latter stages of games.

I hope Sam Davies gets the nod.

Moriaty made 5m from the 8 position last week, it's certainly an issue for the Welsh and something we can exploit as they have very few genuine carriers in the pack.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looked to me that Sam Davies completely bypassed his forwards and just went wide to the backs, which you can do in the latter stages of games.

You can do it from the first whistle.

I know, I know: you 'earn the right to go wide'. Bullocks to that. Test their wings' defence early on.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looked to me that Sam Davies completely bypassed his forwards and just went wide to the backs, which you can do in the latter stages of games.

You can do it from the first whistle.

I know, I know: you 'earn the right to go wide'. Bullocks to that. Test their wings' defence early on.

The new world of no-more-bullschidt. I love it.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looked to me that Sam Davies completely bypassed his forwards and just went wide to the backs, which you can do in the latter stages of games.

You can do it from the first whistle.

I know, I know: you 'earn the right to go wide'. Bullocks to that. Test their wings' defence early on.

England are too powerful. They turn us over in the wide channels because our ruck defence isn't as aggressive as their attack is. We rely on technical ability instead of power. The team is evolving: if you demand immediate revolution from them and expect them to not turn the ball over against England when doing that, then you're under the wrong impression about just how good England are, and modern Rugby generally.

Our scramble defence simply isn't good enough to cope. Again, our defence is usually great when we're setlled, and fixed, and know the structure we're working within, but once a team as big and powerful and fast as England gets turnover ball against our defence in the wide channels, we're either going to concede penalties deliberately to stop their momentum, or concede tries.

That's why you start Biggar. Evolution, not revolution, particularly against England.

We have the players with the ball handling and individual skills to go toe to toe with England at times, and they can still score tries within a 'Biggar-at-10' structure. That said, they can also open up late on if needs by: why would you do that aside from perhaps in the very opening exchanges?

You win nothing for leading for 79 minutes but losing it in the final 1. Equally, you win no points for style.

To go wide first up, you need pace and the welsh backs, perhaps with exception of Webb are not quicker than their opposite numbers.

Recwatcher16 wrote:To go wide first up, you need pace and the welsh backs, perhaps with exception of Webb are not quicker than their opposite numbers.

A snail would be quicker than Mike Brown

miaow wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looked to me that Sam Davies completely bypassed his forwards and just went wide to the backs, which you can do in the latter stages of games.

You can do it from the first whistle.

I know, I know: you 'earn the right to go wide'. Bullocks to that. Test their wings' defence early on.

England are too powerful. They turn us over in the wide channels because our ruck defence isn't as aggressive as their attack is. We rely on technical ability instead of power. The team is evolving: if you demand immediate revolution from them and expect them to not turn the ball over against England when doing that, then you're under the wrong impression about just how good England are, and modern Rugby generally.

Our scramble defence simply isn't good enough to cope. Again, our defence is usually great when we're setlled, and fixed, and know the structure we're working within, but once a team as big and powerful and fast as England gets turnover ball against our defence in the wide channels, we're either going to concede penalties deliberately to stop their momentum, or concede tries.

That's why you start Biggar. Evolution, not revolution, particularly against England.

From first phase, there's no reason at all that we can't go wide straightaway. Put our wingers in a one-on-one situation with theirs.

We go through multiple phases trying to create space, to tie in the opponents' forwards, yet we don't attack space when it's right there for us.

Recwatcher16 wrote:To go wide first up, you need pace and the welsh backs, perhaps with exception of Webb are not quicker than their opposite numbers.

Not sure that's quite true. Either Halfpenny or L Williams is quicker than Brown. I'd say Scott Williams is faster than Farrell, and North is faster than any winger other than May. L Williams probably equal to Nowell, if a different runner.

It's just that pace in isolation isn't the only thing you have to consider with such a tactic.

It's not the '70s, or even the 90s, anymore. You don't just move the ball wide off first phase ball and get outside their far side winger. There's not enough space on the field, defence has improved too much.

miaow wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:To go wide first up, you need pace and the welsh backs, perhaps with exception of Webb are not quicker than their opposite numbers.

Not sure that's quite true. Either Halfpenny or L Williams is quicker than Brown. I'd say Scott Williams is faster than Farrell, and North is faster than any winger other than May. L Williams probably equal to Nowell, if a different runner.

It's just that pace in isolation isn't the only thing you have to consider with such a tactic.

It's not the '70s, or even the 90s, anymore. You don't just move the ball wide off first phase ball and get outside their far side winger. There's not enough space on the field, defence has improved too much.

Let's test that wide defence.

I'm not expecting to see any of this, by the way. It's be route one stuff, as always.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looked to me that Sam Davies completely bypassed his forwards and just went wide to the backs, which you can do in the latter stages of games.

You can do it from the first whistle.

I know, I know: you 'earn the right to go wide'. Bullocks to that. Test their wings' defence early on.

Agree with that. Amazing how many tries are scored from first phase or turnover ball. Hitting a few forwards up for 3 carries and 5m doesn't help in the scheme of things. It's only when the ball slows down you have to try to generate pace through the middle before going wide.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
From first phase, there's no reason at all that we can't go wide straightaway.

See my comment above as an answer to that. Cross field kicks off first phase, yes, as you're turning their winger and it's a 50:50, hopefully better if the kick is executed well, but moving it wide straight to our winger and letting theirs line ours up? Particularly with a very readable backline that seems uncomfortable moving the ball wide when it's not instinctive? No thanks.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Put our wingers in a one-on-one situation with theirs.

Again, not something I would want to entertain early in the game, particularly if North is injured, as he's our most likely backline player to actually break a tackle if lined up properly due to his strength.

What happens when our winger gets tackled (Cuthbert could be starting if North's injured!?!?!)? They have to release the ball, and as the English tackler jumps to their feet to either drive back our ruck support or go for the ball, we have to concede turnover ball which could be moved wide quickly by England against our unsettled defence, or we concede a penalty, potentially kickable, or conceding up to 60m of territory.

I don't see how it's worth it? We're much more likely to be tackled and turn it over than to gain solid ball from which to play the next phase, or make a linebreak.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:We go through multiple phases trying to create space, to tie in the opponents' forwards, yet we don't attack space when it's right there for us.

That's where I think we have room for improvement, and we are getting better, there have been games since the RWC that have shown this, however space is always going to be at a premium until the latter stages of the game, when teams tire. England, as the more powerful and physical team, should and almost always do tire before us: it happened in their own RWC when they kept conceding penalties as we upped the ruck tempo, it happened in the last 6Ns game as the same thing happened and they got a player sin binned. In fact, it happen in Warren Gatland's very first glorious game back in 2008.

I'd rather us nullify England's power, pace, and aggression for the first hour, rather than try to go the roundabout way and end up with egg on our faces and playing right into their tactics. I do agree we need better ball carriers: Moriarty is a ball carrying 6, but not a modern day 8. Jake Ball is important for me, he adds the hard yards which aren't glamourous, and he's never going to be an AWJ, but he's an 'English' type player in that he can do for us what several of their players do for them.

Let's win it in the final quarter rather than 'win' the first hour through style of play and then end up losing the game.

But who is going to win the game morally?

robbo277 wrote:
Agree with that. Amazing how many tries are scored from first phase or turnover ball.

Yeah, exactly! Turnover ball. Something that is anathema to Wales. You're effectively making it a lottery by going away from Gatland's tactics, where individual talent, skill, pace, and power will decide the game, rather than tactics.

As we have such an excellent goalkicker(s), and have had lots of success with these tactics, and as England are more physically powerful than us when you add us up man for man, we cannot rely on going away from a tactical battle. We can't hope that Liam Williams will produce the goods more often than Jack Nowell or Jonathan Jospeh can. We can't rely on Warburton to win us ruck penalties if we do turn it over and England open up, and we can't rely that Itoje/Clifford or whoever for England won't turn us over. We particularly can't rely on this in the first half/60 minutes, i.e. when England's phsyicality will be able to counteract the ball playing skills of Tipuric, Liam, even Halfpenny and North etc.

I sometimes think a lot of Welsh fans are still asking us to play "chuck it to Shane!" tactics still, even though we don't have a player as good as Shane, and in actaul fact, as a team, we're better than we've been for a long time, and we don't have to play that game anymore. Let's trust our defence, goalkicking, the ability to take space and score tries as and when it's one, but if not, to up the tempo in the final quarter, and pressurise England then, particularly with a great footballer like Sam Davies on the bench.

TightHEAD wrote:But who is going to win the game morally?

Always Wales.

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:But who is going to win the game morally?

Always Wales.

You'd certainly win if we scored on words per post

Forums are word games, innit?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:But who is going to win the game morally?

Always Wales.

You'd certainly win if we scored on words per post

Haha etc.

That joke is getting a bir boring though. You have made 30x more posts on this board than me. I don't get the hostility? I'd rather spell my thoughts out tbh. Quicker in the long run.

miaow wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
From first phase, there's no reason at all that we can't go wide straightaway.

See my comment above as an answer to that. Cross field kicks off first phase, yes, as you're turning their winger and it's a 50:50, hopefully better if the kick is executed well, but moving it wide straight to our winger and letting theirs line ours up? Particularly with a very readable backline that seems uncomfortable moving the ball wide when it's not instinctive? No thanks.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Put our wingers in a one-on-one situation with theirs.

Again, not something I would want to entertain early in the game, particularly if North is injured, as he's our most likely backline player to actually break a tackle if lined up properly due to his strength.

What happens when our winger gets tackled (Cuthbert could be starting if North's injured!?!?!)? They have to release the ball, and as the English tackler jumps to their feet to either drive back our ruck support or go for the ball, we have to concede turnover ball which could be moved wide quickly by England against our unsettled defence, or we concede a penalty, potentially kickable, or conceding up to 60m of territory.

I don't see how it's worth it? We're much more likely to be tackled and turn it over than to gain solid ball from which to play the next phase, or make a linebreak.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:We go through multiple phases trying to create space, to tie in the opponents' forwards, yet we don't attack space when it's right there for us.

That's where I think we have room for improvement, and we are getting better, there have been games since the RWC that have shown this, however space is always going to be at a premium until the latter stages of the game, when teams tire. England, as the more powerful and physical team, should and almost always do tire before us: it happened in their own RWC when they kept conceding penalties as we upped the ruck tempo, it happened in the last 6Ns game as the same thing happened and they got a player sin binned. In fact, it happen in Warren Gatland's very first glorious game back in 2008.

I'd rather us nullify England's power, pace, and aggression for the first hour, rather than try to go the roundabout way and end up with egg on our faces and playing right into their tactics. I do agree we need better ball carriers: Moriarty is a ball carrying 6, but not a modern day 8. Jake Ball is important for me, he adds the hard yards which aren't glamourous, and he's never going to be an AWJ, but he's an 'English' type player in that he can do for us what several of their players do for them.

Let's win it in the final quarter rather than 'win' the first hour through style of play and then end up losing the game.

I'll be brief:

All a winger wants is the chance to take on his opponent one-on-one.

What happens if our winger doesn't get tackled?

It's possible to win a match before the final quarter.

Just as a point on the Sam Davies/Biggar debate, I'd be much more worried about George Ford coming off the bench and able to get the likes of Haskell, May, Te'o etc. playing good Rugby than if we are able to 'get to him' from the first minute. We did it at Twickenham last 6Ns, and in Cardiff two years ago.

It was clearly a focus to charge Youngs and Ford down, and I think we did it 3 or 4 times in Cardiff in the first half or so, which should never really happen for England considering your pack. Then we did it in Twickenham, and of course Biggar scored a try directly from a charge down.

Let's tire Ford out, pressurise his kicks, make him tackle, and take that little bit of edge off him in the final quarter so his footballing abilities won't be fresh going into the last quarter of the game.

miaow wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:But who is going to win the game morally?

Always Wales.

You'd certainly win if we scored on words per post

Haha etc.

That joke is getting a bir boring though. You have made 30x more posts on this board than me. I don't get the hostility? I'd rather spell my thoughts out tbh. Quicker in the long run.

No hostility intended my Welsh brethren.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
I'll be brief:

All a winger wants is the chance to take on his opponent one-on-one.

What happens if our winger doesn't get tackled?

It's possible to win a match before the final quarter.

Likewise:

True, but don't let the tail wag the dog. Better for a winger to have one good chance, than two good chances having spurned several more that resulted in gains for the opposition.

As I said, outside breaks simply don't happen that often in Rugby anymore, particularly in as evenly matched games as this one. However, they're far more likely to happen in the 75th minute than the 5th, and I've spelt out why I personally think you minimise moving it wide early on/in the 5th minute because of the risk/reward consideration.

It literally isn't. As the old adage goes, you can lose a game in the first X number of minutes, but you can't win it.

miaow wrote:It literally isn't. As the old adage goes, you can lose a game in the first X number of minutes, but you can't win it.

If you can't win it, you can't lose it

miaow wrote:Just as a point on the Sam Davies/Biggar debate, I'd be much more worried about George Ford coming off the bench and able to get the likes of Haskell, May, Te'o etc. playing good Rugby than if we are able to 'get to him' from the first minute. We did it at Twickenham last 6Ns, and in Cardiff two years ago.

It was clearly a focus to charge Youngs and Ford down, and I think we did it 3 or 4 times in Cardiff in the first half or so, which should never really happen for England considering your pack. Then we did it in Twickenham, and of course Biggar scored a try directly from a charge down.

Let's tire Ford out, pressurise his kicks, make him tackle, and take that little bit of edge off him in the final quarter so his footballing abilities won't be fresh going into the last quarter of the game.

Wasn't Ford man of the match in that game?

miaow wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
I'll be brief:

All a winger wants is the chance to take on his opponent one-on-one.

What happens if our winger doesn't get tackled?

It's possible to win a match before the final quarter.

Likewise:

True, but don't let the tail wag the dog. Better for a winger to have one good chance, than two good chances having spurned several more that resulted in gains for the opposition.

As I said, outside breaks simply don't happen that often in Rugby anymore, particularly in as evenly matched games as this one. However, they're far more likely to happen in the 75th minute than the 5th, and I've spelt out why I personally think you minimise moving it wide early on/in the 5th minute because of the risk/reward consideration.

It literally isn't. As the old adage goes, you can lose a game in the first X number of minutes, but you can't win it.

Ah, so you can use a figure of speech, but I can't. Gotcha.  

I haven't said anything about clean breaks, only that wingers want the chance to take on their man. A half-break, a broken tackle, and importantly, doubt in the opponents' minds. You might not score when you go wide; but if the opposition know you may go wide, then that creates doubt. The half-second that that buys you can be crucial as the game wears on. If, on the other hand, teams know you have no intention of going wide from first (or even second or third) phase, then you're making their job easier. I say we should make their job as hard as possible.

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:It literally isn't. As the old adage goes, you can lose a game in the first X number of minutes, but you can't win it.

If you can't win it, you can't lose it

Haha yeah, I can see the flaw in the thinking, because after all, common knowledge often doesn't appear logical, but didn't want to elaborate and get accused of an essay.

I'll try to spell out why there is practical truth to it though, even if- on the face of it- it's illogical nonsense.

You can spend 79 minutes leading a game, even 80 in Rugby Union, and yet still lose come the final whistle. In short: it's no good busting a gut to get a massive lead early in the game, only to then to have it clawed back and to finally come up short. Equally, the risk of busting a gut early on- i.e. playing fast and loose ( )- is such that, instead of getting the lead you hoped for, you can quite easily be turned over and end up losing by a significant margin.

In practical sporting terms, it means don't rest on your laurels if you are leading until the final whistle goes. However, if you're losing, even your best efforts can ultimately mean you don't recover the scoreline deficit; therefore, whilst the team that was leading hadn't 'won' at that stage- they still needed to work hard to maintain their lead- the team that was losing put everything into it but still lost, i.e. the game was already lost.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Launchbury looked really out of shape to me. He actually looks really quite over weight for a lock. When I saw him I was surprised how poor his conditioning was.

He's been in good form for Wasps, particularly in their European Cup outings.

thomh wrote:Wasn't Ford man of the match in that game?

Slightly ubious decision if so, although he and England were much improved in the second half, and I can't think of any other English player who would have deserved it off the top of my head (it should almost certainly have been one of your forwards, I imagine). He was by no means poor overall, just demonstrating that Wales have successfully targeted and nullified his threats in the past. As Wales took their foot off the gas and allowed England back into the game by not matching their intensity, they hadn't done enough to comprehensively take him out of the game (very difficult/impossible even if Wales were playing well, as he and England are very good, after all) and he kicked the goals to win the match, I believe (always a good indicator of a sponsor's man of the match criteria)? I'd be very disappointed if Wales put in a performance like two years ago though, and wouldn't bank on it if I were English.

miaow wrote:

thomh wrote:Wasn't Ford man of the match in that game?

Slightly ubious decision if so, although he and England were much improved in the second half, and I can't think of any other English player who would have deserved it off the top of my head (it should almost certainly have been one of your forwards, I imagine). He was by no means poor overall, just demonstrating that Wales have successfully targeted and nullified his threats in the past. As Wales took their foot off the gas and allowed England back into the game by not matching their intensity, they hadn't done enough to comprehensively take him out of the game (very difficult/impossible even if Wales were playing well, as he and England are very good, after all) and he kicked the goals to win the match, I believe (always a good indicator of a sponsor's man of the match criteria)? I'd be very disappointed if Wales put in a performance like two years ago though, and wouldn't bank on it if I were English.

That is certainly true, but I remember him being excellent in the game two years ago. Beyond the try from the base of the scrum England were pretty much in control of that game with Ford pulling the strings.

He didn't look great at Twickenham a year ago admittedly.

thomh wrote:

miaow wrote:Just as a point on the Sam Davies/Biggar debate, I'd be much more worried about George Ford coming off the bench and able to get the likes of Haskell, May, Te'o etc. playing good Rugby than if we are able to 'get to him' from the first minute. We did it at Twickenham last 6Ns, and in Cardiff two years ago.

It was clearly a focus to charge Youngs and Ford down, and I think we did it 3 or 4 times in Cardiff in the first half or so, which should never really happen for England considering your pack. Then we did it in Twickenham, and of course Biggar scored a try directly from a charge down.

Let's tire Ford out, pressurise his kicks, make him tackle, and take that little bit of edge off him in the final quarter so his footballing abilities won't be fresh going into the last quarter of the game.

Wasn't Ford man of the match in that game?

And in this game Ford will go off, Farrell will go to 10 and Te'o to 12 - which means a whole different set of problems to deal with from the first 60 minutes.

thomh wrote:

miaow wrote:

thomh wrote:Wasn't Ford man of the match in that game?

Slightly ubious decision if so, although he and England were much improved in the second half, and I can't think of any other English player who would have deserved it off the top of my head (it should almost certainly have been one of your forwards, I imagine). He was by no means poor overall, just demonstrating that Wales have successfully targeted and nullified his threats in the past. As Wales took their foot off the gas and allowed England back into the game by not matching their intensity, they hadn't done enough to comprehensively take him out of the game (very difficult/impossible even if Wales were playing well, as he and England are very good, after all) and he kicked the goals to win the match, I believe (always a good indicator of a sponsor's man of the match criteria)? I'd be very disappointed if Wales put in a performance like two years ago though, and wouldn't bank on it if I were English.

That is certainly true, but I remember him being excellent in the game two years ago. Beyond the try from the base of the scrum England were pretty much in control of that game with Ford pulling the strings.

He didn't look great at Twickenham a year ago admittedly.

I'm going to get hammered for saying this but Ford is your English Priestland. Behind a strong pack he can thrive but if the pack is going backwards so does Ford at a rate of knots.

lostinwales wrote:

thomh wrote:

miaow wrote:Just as a point on the Sam Davies/Biggar debate, I'd be much more worried about George Ford coming off the bench and able to get the likes of Haskell, May, Te'o etc. playing good Rugby than if we are able to 'get to him' from the first minute. We did it at Twickenham last 6Ns, and in Cardiff two years ago.

It was clearly a focus to charge Youngs and Ford down, and I think we did it 3 or 4 times in Cardiff in the first half or so, which should never really happen for England considering your pack. Then we did it in Twickenham, and of course Biggar scored a try directly from a charge down.

Let's tire Ford out, pressurise his kicks, make him tackle, and take that little bit of edge off him in the final quarter so his footballing abilities won't be fresh going into the last quarter of the game.

Wasn't Ford man of the match in that game?

And in this game Ford will go off, Farrell will go to 10 and Te'o to 12 - which means a whole different set of problems to deal with from the first 60 minutes.

Yeah Sam Davies will have to worry about not being smashed in the head again with Te'o's cast. How he's allowed to wear that thing when his break was over 2 years ago, I'll never know

True Raven wrote:I'm going to get hammered for saying this but Ford is your English Priestland.  Behind a strong pack he can thrive but if the pack is going backwards so does Ford at a rate of knots.

Not sure you'll get hammered, that's the conventional wisdom regarding Ford.

lostinwales wrote:And in this game Ford will go off, Farrell will go to 10 and Te'o to 12 - which means a whole different set of problems to deal with from the first 60 minutes.

If that is what happens, the it's an easy choice for Wales. Either we stick with what we have if it's working, or we twist. The twist options are twofold.

Jamie Roberts to be crash ball and defensive if immobile solidity for 20 minutes, or if we're in need of tries and running, we got the full 180 and bring Sam Davies into the fold.

TightHEAD wrote:I hope Sam Davies gets the nod.

Me too and if Biggar is unfit then I wouldn't mind seeing what Owen Williams can offer either

My main concern was the lack of ball carriers getting over the gainline for England. Something that England have become overly reliant on the Vaunipolas. Clifford coming in I am sure has been told to get into 'beast mode' - although we are yet to see him deliver on the physical side. I am surprised that Sinkler wasn't let loose at the end of the last test as he would certainly added another carrier.
My hope is that against a pack that isn't a big as the French units (no disrespect there as they are all highly skilled) that guys like - Lawes, Hughes, Launchbury and Itoje will all make a bit more of an impact on the gain line and give Youngs/Ford something of a platform.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Launchbury looked really out of shape to me.

If looking like that is what looking out of shape is, then feck me, we are all fat barstewards.

You must be like a Greek god then Guns ?