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.

trebellbobaggins wrote:well it might be that or it might be Ireland clicked and are just brilliant when they do.  it's possible.  it's a cracking team.

but yes Italy did just seem to roll over.  sad to see them seemingly going nowhere again.

Well yes, I'm secretly hoping there is some truth in that - but I'm of course not going public on such a view until and if we get past France.

As for England, it has to be encouraging that you won, but I think the warning signs are there for the longevity of this team going towards the RWC. As I said, you have to be able to adapt, and I didn't see enough of that to win the game, rather it was a case of Wales flagging and their poor errors from the 50th minute onwards that allowed England to prosper without changing tact, albeit it they did change the players who were implementing those same tactics.

To me, George Ford is a weakness. He was targeted by Wales repeatedly, and each time conceded a lot of ground in the tackle, and with it Welsh momentum came surging forwards. You weren't able to exert nearly the same pressure on Cuthbert, although- as it proved- our own defensive liability did in part cost us the game. But as I said, that felt much less judgement from England than luck: yes it takes Ford to spin that ball wide to Daly, but it's not quite lining up Tipuric and AWJ in the first 2 minutes to charge at Ford as we did. I'm surprised you only kicked to his wing at restarts, and not in open play. An opportunity missed in my opinion. In any case: I think Ford's a weakness that was exploited by Wales. Clearly has his positives, but you need to protect him better if he stays in the team.

The bench was huge. Haskell made a big impact as that dull, hammering ball carrier, and Te'o had some big moments too. They allowed you to get over the gainline and get the same kind of momentum that Wales were getting in your half with the ball, and offset where you were technically a bit less smart than Wales.

Your mauls were very good. Your scrums were alright, a bit hit and miss. Dan Cole was under a lot of pressure, but Marler did a job on his side, albeit the angle he attacks at is still very suspect.

If you had a player like Warburton or Tipuric as your openside, I think you could go on and win the World Cup, genuinely. You don't need to adapt, the bulldozer approach will take out pretty much every NH team, Australia, and go toe to toe with South Africa. The only difference is you need a better back row to compete with NZ. Bring Vunipola back, and Robshaw at 6, with Haskell as your bench option, and I think you have the foundation of an excellent back row. But I do think you need a proper openside, a genuine Test level beast who can win the ball on the floor even when the rest of the team is losing the breakdown battle.

Other than that, the strength in depth in the squad is probably unparalleled in World Rugby. You're a very good team, but to go to that next level- to surpass the Six Nations, even- and get into the mindset of the squad you had when you did win the RWC, I think there needs to be adaptation, in personnel and tactics. Is Farrell the long term 10? Do you lose too much by taking Ford out? Who's your openside? Do you think you can stick with Haskell/one of your existing 7s and rely on the rest of the team's bulldozing breakdown work, rather than going for something a bit more technical? Can you stick with Hartley until 2019 in a John Smit kind of way, leading the team whilst the better hooker sits on the bench?

To my mind, adaptation is the only way this England team stays ahead of the curve. Next 6Ns will be the big test for you, 18 months from the RWC. It's almost too late to make wholesale changes if things don't go well then, so I think the adaptation has to start now. If you get it right, then there's only NZ in your way. I have no investment in England's improvement, so don't take these as overly critical, but as a fan, and if I was one who wanted England to win the RWC, these would be the places I'd hope for changes in. The problem is, they're not easily done, and unless you have the players/can find someone English qualified, you have to go a different route.

eirebilly wrote:Am I to understand that JJ, who has played brilliantly in both attack and defence for some time, may or may not have made a defensive mistake so he is now deemed a defensive liability?

Zero tolerance teams billy. England and Wales are zero tolerance boys. Stop being so Irishy 'it'll do'

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:
It was more a comment on your need for self congratulation. Very odd. And perhaps a bit narcissistic.

A bit rough there, Griff.  Everyone likes to feel they got an opinion worth listening to, miaow ain't no different.

It's different  of course when you are tasked with the gift of being forever always right though - that's a burden only some of us have to live with.  I bear mine in constant good grace  

Yeah, fair point 'Fly. I just find some posters are open to discussion while others like miaow just want to ram their opinions down your throat until you agree.

SecretFly wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote:well it might be that or it might be Ireland clicked and are just brilliant when they do.  it's possible.  it's a cracking team.

but yes Italy did just seem to roll over.  sad to see them seemingly going nowhere again.

Well yes, I'm secretly hoping there is some truth in that - but I'm of course not going public on such a view until and if we get past France.

yeah, always sensible to keep a lid on it but you have every reason for optimism. with the back row issues Eng have I have you as 10-20 point favourites when you meet eng.

Griff wrote:It was more a comment on your need for self congratulation. Very odd. And perhaps a bit narcissistic.

Perhaps, but as the above shows, even when I'm quite literally, on evidence, correct, and a prediction I make specific to a facet of defence and that player's suitability to the Lions, I'm still "wrong". I'd hardly call that narcissistic. Petty, perhaps, in wanting to just reinforce a point, but then I'm hardly the only one on these boards. It's more a case of this place being full of people looking for their opinions to be reaffirmed, rather than to discuss the merits and weaknesses of player(s), and in the last week that has ranged from "Sam Davies = creativity = tries = wins, therefore Biggar should be dropped" to getting absolutely hammered on my technical assessment of Joseph. I couldn't have spelt it out more specifically where I thought his unsuitability for Gatland's defensive 13 based on positional play, size, and strength could be exploited, and why I think- despite labelling him World Class, despite him being the best attacking 13 to the Lions, and despite being in good form- he's far from nailed on for the Lions yet, because he will pick players first and foremost who are defensively brilliant, as any glinting weakness in that defensive line will be the difference between "Gatlandball" winning and losing. Yet apparently that's meaningless!? What!? Haha. Incredible. You just can't win with people whose minds are firmly shut on a specific point.

Genuinely, it can feel like talking to people who don't understand or have never really player Rugby very much on these boards. The sad thing is, were we having these dicussions in person, I doubt I'd get half the stick I do, and perhaps people might be more willing to take on board what I'm saying. Perhaps it's narcissism, but I think I read the game pretty well, having played and enjoyed watching it, and I at least try to spell out my reasoning based on what I think and can see. Very few others do that on here. They want destructive, one line posts like yours, trying to derail the thread based on personal dislike of a poster. It's pathetic really.

@Miaw England can also look to their many years of strong U20's as a basis for constant evolution. I don't think they will stagnate at all as Eddie seems very willing to keep experimenting and giving them chances.

Take on board what you're saying?! No one needs to take on board anything another poster says. It's meant to be discussion, not instruction.

Can we put to bed the myth that George Ford is weak in defence.

Every time these two meet the Welsh gameplan seems to be built around Ford being weak in defence and they are going to run down his channel all game long.

I appreciate this gameplan is perceived by all Welsh pundits and Fans and not the Welsh coaching staff, but still!

I actually think miaow has a point about Joseph. I like joseph, and I keep hearing about his great defensive work, but ( maybe they're isolated incidents, that stick in my mind) I seem to recall a few missed tackles that have cost us... Folau v oz in the autumn for one?)... even the best miss the odd tackle, so I wouldn't single him out (and I'm sure some stats exist that support his generally good defensive work... that I can't  be bothered to look for!) - but not sure he's beyond reproach.

Nobody has mentioned this but the Best way of getting at England is running down Ford's channel. Pity that Jamie got so little time and busted that plan. Well, there always is next time.

As an Englishman, I read miaow's detailed analysis above with interest. I saw no digs or slights (hmm .. maybe that 'someone English qualified' ) or self-promotion. I may not agree with all he said but he made his points reasonably and they are arguable. By the way, the last two England games have shown, if nothing else, that the returns from injury of Billy V and Robshaw simply cannot come fast enough.

Putting the boot on the other foot - as an Englishman looking in at Wales - I get the history between us and all that, but why the hell do Wales seem never to play against anyone else with both such intensity and belief as against England? If you could capture that spirit, you surely would eg start beating Aus, certainly at home and finish off more close games in the 6N. A Wales team in its pomp is a thing of beauty and a terrifying sight for others. It's always a huge compliment to us, but why reserve wholeheartedly chucking the kitchen sink at England?

SecretFly wrote:Nobody has mentioned this but the Best way of getting at England is running down Ford's channel.  Pity that Jamie got so little time and busted that plan.  Well, there always is next time.

Sounds like a plan.

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:
It was more a comment on your need for self congratulation. Very odd. And perhaps a bit narcissistic.

A bit rough there, Griff.  Everyone likes to feel they got an opinion worth listening to, miaow ain't no different.

It's different  of course when you are tasked with the gift of being forever always right though - that's a burden only some of us have to live with.  I bear mine in constant good grace  

Yeah, fair point 'Fly. I just find some posters are open to discussion while others like miaow just want to ram their opinions down your throat until you agree.

Oh the irony. What more can I do other than make a prediction about where I think a player is lacking to support my inital statement, and when that eventuality precisely occurs, hold it up as evidence? How am I the one who's not willing to change their opinion? I said I'd keep a close eye on his defence this 6Ns, particularly in the Wales and Ireland games, as these will be the best guage for the Lions. It might only be "one incident", but that's all that matters at the top level: yesterday, he didn't pass the test.

How am I the one ramming an opinion down someone's throat? 7.5 and Hammer seem far too invested in me being wrong, to the point where they're actively trying to pretend that either Joseph wasn't at fault in the way I predicted he may be weak, or just not addressing the point at all. I have no issue with you, but surely direct your anger to the other two over me, because they're offering absolutely nothing constructive whereas I am!?

Griff wrote:Take on board what you're saying?! No one needs to take on board anything another poster says. It's meant to be discussion, not instruction.

How's this for discussion?

"I think Joseph isn't as good as people are making him out to be, because of his D"
"NO! YOU'RE WRONG!"
"He's very good, but he's not the best at X, Y, Z"
"NO!! YOU'VE NEVER EVEN WATCHED HIM, HAVE YOU!?!"
"I'll watch him closer this 6Ns, but I stick by my opinion"
"HA. YOU'VE ADMITTED YOU'RE WRONG!!"
"What? In the upcoming game, Wales could look to exploit Joseph's X, Y, Z in this manner: T"
*Wales score a try identical to T as hypothesised*
"Ah look, I was right about that: anyway, there's a good piece of evidence that-"
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! WROOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG!"

miaow,

You are obviously a clever person and know your rugby but you do come across as a very condescending and arrogant person. I would hazard a guess that is not the case but you could chill out a wee bit

It wasn't down to Joseph now you're saying he's a weak defender and questioning his size among other things. Dear me miaow. You refused to give more detail on Joseph s defence before and now desperately cling to this! What's your definition of world class btw? Or do I have to pay for that.

And made up conversations. You're the one who admitted not watching much of him. Think it was when you were getting wound up about the England and colonies player progression team vs wales match build up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It wasn't down to Joseph now you're saying he's a weak defender and questioning his size among other things. Dear me miaow. You refused to give more detail on Joseph s defence before and now desperately cling to this! What's your definition of world class btw? Or do I have to pay for that.

Haha, if you'd actually read what I said before you started responding a couple of weeks ago you would have known that his size and strength was always part of my criticism relating to Gatland's defensive system as a 13. You're just demonstrating that you never read what I said in the first place, which- to be honest- I've often felt when discussing anything with you.

What's the point in discussing such an abstract idea as "World Class" when you can't seemingly grasp the literal ways in which Joseph was at fault for Wales's try?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And made up conversations. You're the one who admitted not watching much of him. Think it was when you were getting wound up about the England and colonies player progression team vs wales match build up.

I said I didn't watch Bath play, but that doesn't matter too much for the Lions, as Test match Rugby dictates who goes on the Tour: you can be brilliant in the Premiership/Pro12, but if you struggle at Test level, you're not up to it. That much is obvious. There's a weighting of importance that goes Top Class Test level (SANZAR, 6Ns bar Italy), Test matches (Samoa, Argentina, AIs etc.) + European RCC, Pro12/Premiership. It's why so much weighting is given to this 6Ns, and why unfortunately for Joseph- because come the Lions, I want the best 23 possible to be playing NZ- he in part confirmed my doubts over his suitability to Gatland's defensive system. It won't have gone unnoticed by a coach like Gatland if I saw the potential weakness, and predicted it so specifically. Is his attacking prowess enough to compensate? At the moment, still probably yes, because 13 isn't a position of massive strength, but the Scottish centres might have something to say about that.

I'll stop 'making up' conversations as long as you stop making up what did and didn't happen on the rugby field.

In the meantime, I'm going to take eirebilly's advice and chill out.

You mentioned world class just wanted to know your definition. What is it for you?

What should Joseph have done yesterday by the way? Great set up by jd for the last try.

miaow wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That try wasn't poor defence from Joseph so no vindication for you.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Very easy to use a small sample to back up anything if you try hard enough, not entirely sure the try was anything to do Joseph.

Haha, oh boys! I make a precition that literally occurs, and that's apparently meaningless? Come on. Enjoy England's win, but try finding your other eye whilst doing so. I know it's embarrassing to admit wrong etc., but that's the benefit of a forum, it's anonymous.

To me it looks like Williams got in through Farrell's channel after he was blocked but each to their own. I'd say it's rather more embarrassing trying to base a whole opinion based on one game myself.

I say his defence isn't suited to Gatland's tactics for the Lions. I said he could be a defensive liability. You accuse me of not watching him. I say where I think his defence is weak. His defensive positioning- an area I had said isn't top drawer, something the 13 needs to be excellent at in Gatland's teams- is exploited in a Test match. That concession was very nearly the difference between winning and losing. Test match Rugby is all about the marginal gains, and offsetting weakness as much as possible. NZ will exploit that weakness better than any other team on the planet.

How on Earth am I the one who's embarrassing when you provide nothing other than 'no, you're wrong, I said so?'. I'm not responding to you anymore. Bitter, bitter human.

You have serious problems.

JJ- no he's not been having a good 6N. Down south in Oz he was the pick of the back '4' of the England team and handled the Australians very well. They do tend to have some decent backs out there you know. He was pretty handy in the AI too.

He's done better against better players than he's faced so far this 6N. Maybe its the weather - maybe he's been carrying an injury but he has credit in the bank (and is the reason Daly is out on the wing)

Are Beshocked and Miaow somehow related?

Don't feed the trolls.......

The Welsh try was caused by bad defending by Nowell. He tried to track the Welsh winger but was too late. You will find it was Nowell who made the last gasp attempt at a tackle. Nowell let his opposition through, simple.

I have read through a couple (Guardian and Torygraph) reports of the game, both failed to mention the switch between Lawes and Itoje, the Guardian even scoring Itoje on his performance at 6 and stating it was better than last weeks. Do these muppets actually get paid for writing this drivel.

Good to see Jones giving Lawes his dues; in my opinion he had a great game.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

B91212 wrote:For what it's worth I don't think the swapping of Lawes and Itoje in the scrums was pre-planned. In fact I seem to remember that Lawes packed down behind Marler in the first few scrums with Launchbury behind Cole. The change came after Launchbury got hurt during the first half, looked upper body/ chest maybe some shoulder. He then moved across to behind Marler after the injury. Lawes has had ongoing shoulder issues for a while and packs down behind the LH for Saints as a result. Simon Shaw used to be only able to pack down behind the LH too later in his career because of shoulder issues. Think yesterday it was more a case that Itoje was the only option of the 3 left who could pack down on the right behind Cole.

Not disputing any of that but i'm pretty sure that Itoje was packing down in the second row from the first scrum and I think it was just a tactic to use his extra power.

Without re watching any of the match I'm pretty sure Lawes and Launchbury packed down together in the second row for at least the first scrum of the game? And it was still early here so I hadn't been drinking .

Guess we will know for sure if it happens again against Italy. Can't see either Lawes or Launchbury not starting after their performances yesterday if fit, or Itoje being dropped to the bench.

I'm quite happy with Daly "stuck out in the wing" or at full back . Yes he may play most of his club rugby at 13 but it seems a waste of pace and long kicks from hand.
Getting the ball kicked to him and letting him run back from deep...or return it with interest seems a better use of his best attributes rather than trying to burst through the line and be expected to pass one in a while. In the centers he's expected to do more robust tackling rather than heroic cover scrambles which is what he seems more suited to.
His not the explosive acceleration and raw power of a pre injuries Tuilagi, but given enough space he was quite capable of running right round Cuthbert, and skinned Biggar by a considerable margin despite having to turn and accelerate from a standstill to clear that interception.
His pace in the wing came very close to earning a try in the France game too.

Joseph has been a bit anonymous lately yes. Maybe he's been found out a bit by defenses, or rather covered better. He's really not seen much of the ball, certainly not compared to last years 6 nations. In general England haven't had much joy in attack which is worrying, but that may stem from the backrow getting outclassed at times.

All in I don't see the need for a reshuffle there yet, although Teo is banging on the door as a starter pretty hard. He just looks the part as a test player. The pressures on Ford to have a game like Biggar did and remind people why he was Jones first choice.

Dalys future is surely wing and developing into the long term replacement for Brown at fullback.

Genuine competition for places throughout the side isn't a bad thing really.

Great post Gooseberry, though I actually think that Jones is behind the curve in terms of our back line attacking development. Has Brown had his day? Do our wings add to our game? Yes the Backrow injuries have effected our performances but so too has the limitations of our props.

Eddie hinted at experimenting for the Italy game, but beyond that I don't think he will look at replacing Brown this 6N. His defensive qualities are important with our entire preferred back row missing.

Longer term, Daly looks the most likely contender at fullback, though not sure he's as willing to get stuck into rucks as Brown.

I think JJ is the best outside back we have, but maybe not in February against the kinds of heavyweight suffocating defenses we have met so far. It may be that it is an overall failure of the rest of the team to give him the little bit of space he needs to make brakes, it may be a drop off in form given that he has been so remarkably good for a while.

But in hindsight if you can't give an elusive runner space to do their thing, you might be better off playing Te'o who is just as happy running into people as running past them.

Horses for courses.

Isn't that just Gatland Ball then, lostinwales? I think most people are advocating that we need to avoid that at all costs.

Griff wrote:Isn't that just Gatland Ball then, lostinwales? I think most people are advocating that we need to avoid that at all costs.

It's similar but Te'o has shown an ability to both go through and around people, it was his break that had has camped on the Welsh line and then JD2 did the rest for us.

Daly looks quite a useful footballer. Surprised at his composure. Good hands too.

TightHEAD wrote:Can we put to bed the myth that George Ford is weak in defence.

Every time these two meet the Welsh gameplan seems to be built around Ford being weak in defence and they are going to run down his channel all game long.

I appreciate this gameplan is perceived by all Welsh pundits and Fans  and not the Welsh coaching staff, but still!

The Welsh frequently targetted Ford and IMO almost made metres every single time. Ford made his tackles but was forced backwards. I thought the tactic worked.

Some people think making your tackles is enough, I disagree. Compare this to Moriarty who able to smash people like Hughes and Itoje back. I know it's a backrow and fly half but Ford is still someone IMO who is a target.


Plenty of room of improvement for England but England are able to win games because they keep up the intensity for the full 80.

The win has been called lucky by some. It wasn't. England just exerted sufficient pressure to get the winning score.

Even if Davies had kicked the ball out with his clearance it would have still been an England lineout in Wales' half.

I've said it many times now - Jones used the bench very well. He brought on the players when needed, not just doing subs for the sake of it unlike Howley.

Even Sinckler who wasn't on for that long had a positive cameo.

England in the end ultimately had a superior 23. England have that advantage of superior depth and they used it.

beshocked wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Can we put to bed the myth that George Ford is weak in defence.

Every time these two meet the Welsh gameplan seems to be built around Ford being weak in defence and they are going to run down his channel all game long.

I appreciate this gameplan is perceived by all Welsh pundits and Fans  and not the Welsh coaching staff, but still!

The Welsh frequently targetted Ford and IMO almost made metres every single time. Ford made his tackles but was forced backwards. I thought the tactic worked.

Some people think making your tackles is enough, I disagree. Compare this to Moriarty who able to smash people like Hughes and Itoje back. I know it's a backrow and fly half but Ford is still someone IMO who is a target.


Plenty of room of improvement for England but England are able to win games because they keep up the intensity for the full 80.

The win has been called lucky by some. It wasn't. England just exerted sufficient pressure to get the winning score.

Even if Davies had kicked the ball out with his clearance it would have still been an England lineout in Wales' half.

I've said it many times now - Jones used the bench very well. He brought on the players when needed, not just doing subs for the sake of it unlike Howley.

Even Sinckler who wasn't on for that long had a positive cameo.

England in the end ultimately had a superior 23.  England have that advantage of superior depth and they used it.

Good Post Beshocked especially the opening point, Ford was targeted and it brought big rewards, this is why some of us on this side of the bridge were pleased that Dan recovered from his rib injury, both Davies and Ford lack nothing in effort or expertise in tackling, it is just their size. If Sam had been selected the same emphasis would have been set on him by England, as we put on George and the rewards would have been just as much if not more.
Let me finally add Sam will make a significant difference in one of the matches coming up, probably the next one against Scotland.

Hopefully the BBC & some Welsh supports will stop banging on about the 2013 game now England have beaten them the couple of outings to Wales.

I still think the Welsh attack was obsessed with attacking down Fords neck that it was predictable and ultimately easy to defend against.

What were the rewards for doing so, as umm they lost!

englandglory4ever wrote:The Welsh try was caused by bad defending by Nowell. He tried to track the Welsh winger but was too late. You will find it was Nowell who made the last gasp attempt at a tackle. Nowell let his opposition through, simple.

Agree entirely.

Credit to Wales, it was a lovely strike move, but our midfield did exactly as it should have done. Farrell hit S Williams and Joseph marked Davies. If Farrell gambles and hits L Williams instead but the ball is given to S Williams on the crash then it's a defensive error and S Williams is walking it in. If Joseph gambles and steps into L Williams and the ball goes out the back then Davies is waltzing through a huge hole.

As it is, neither gambles, they both stick to their job. What was needed was Nowell to stick to his man and track L Williams sooner, especially given that L Williams had just been up to Webb and given him the call (although I appreciate just because the TV cameras picked that up in real time doesn't necessarily mean Nowell could have easily spotted it).

Miaow, your original point was that Joseph lacked the physicality to defend at 13 in Gatlands system. You've now switched to trying to pick up on any defensive mistakes he makes. Even if you think this is one, which I don't for the reasons I've explained above, it doesn't pertain to your original point.

It looks very much like you've made a snap judgement without really thinking about it or looking at the evidence and are now trying to justify that afterwards.

It was just a very well executed move that 8/10 times never comes off in training let alone in a international. 'The perfect Storm'

wayne wrote:

beshocked wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Can we put to bed the myth that George Ford is weak in defence.

Every time these two meet the Welsh gameplan seems to be built around Ford being weak in defence and they are going to run down his channel all game long.

I appreciate this gameplan is perceived by all Welsh pundits and Fans  and not the Welsh coaching staff, but still!

The Welsh frequently targetted Ford and IMO almost made metres every single time. Ford made his tackles but was forced backwards. I thought the tactic worked.

Some people think making your tackles is enough, I disagree. Compare this to Moriarty who able to smash people like Hughes and Itoje back. I know it's a backrow and fly half but Ford is still someone IMO who is a target.


Plenty of room of improvement for England but England are able to win games because they keep up the intensity for the full 80.

The win has been called lucky by some. It wasn't. England just exerted sufficient pressure to get the winning score.

Even if Davies had kicked the ball out with his clearance it would have still been an England lineout in Wales' half.

I've said it many times now - Jones used the bench very well. He brought on the players when needed, not just doing subs for the sake of it unlike Howley.

Even Sinckler who wasn't on for that long had a positive cameo.

England in the end ultimately had a superior 23.  England have that advantage of superior depth and they used it.

Good Post Beshocked especially the opening point, Ford was targeted and it brought big rewards, this is why some of us on this side of the bridge were pleased that Dan recovered from his rib injury, both Davies and Ford lack nothing in effort or expertise in tackling, it is just their size. If Sam had been selected the same emphasis would have been set on him by England, as we put on George and the rewards would have been just as much if not more.
Let me finally add Sam will make a significant difference in one of the matches coming up, probably the next one against Scotland.  

This is a good point. But it needs a dose of realism too. Not every fly half can be Jonny Wilkinson. George Ford is smaller so it get's noticed more. Biggar and Russell are both tenacious defenders, but neither are big tacklers. If a team were to employ the tactic of running down the channel as consistently as Wales did I'd wager they would lose ground nearly everytime too.

A better solution is to put the 10 out in the wider channels in defensive situations. England do this a fair bit. The effect is 2 fold,
1-It helps with the problem you're describing.
2-Ideally you don't want your creative player tiring himself out making tackles, keep him fresh for when he get's on the ball.

cascough wrote:

wayne wrote:

beshocked wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Can we put to bed the myth that George Ford is weak in defence.

Every time these two meet the Welsh gameplan seems to be built around Ford being weak in defence and they are going to run down his channel all game long.

I appreciate this gameplan is perceived by all Welsh pundits and Fans  and not the Welsh coaching staff, but still!

The Welsh frequently targetted Ford and IMO almost made metres every single time. Ford made his tackles but was forced backwards. I thought the tactic worked.

Some people think making your tackles is enough, I disagree. Compare this to Moriarty who able to smash people like Hughes and Itoje back. I know it's a backrow and fly half but Ford is still someone IMO who is a target.


Plenty of room of improvement for England but England are able to win games because they keep up the intensity for the full 80.

The win has been called lucky by some. It wasn't. England just exerted sufficient pressure to get the winning score.

Even if Davies had kicked the ball out with his clearance it would have still been an England lineout in Wales' half.

I've said it many times now - Jones used the bench very well. He brought on the players when needed, not just doing subs for the sake of it unlike Howley.

Even Sinckler who wasn't on for that long had a positive cameo.

England in the end ultimately had a superior 23.  England have that advantage of superior depth and they used it.

Good Post Beshocked especially the opening point, Ford was targeted and it brought big rewards, this is why some of us on this side of the bridge were pleased that Dan recovered from his rib injury, both Davies and Ford lack nothing in effort or expertise in tackling, it is just their size. If Sam had been selected the same emphasis would have been set on him by England, as we put on George and the rewards would have been just as much if not more.
Let me finally add Sam will make a significant difference in one of the matches coming up, probably the next one against Scotland.  

This is a good point. But it needs a dose of realism too. Not every fly half can be Jonny Wilkinson. George Ford is smaller so it get's noticed more. Biggar and Russell are both tenacious defenders, but neither are big tacklers. If a team were to employ the tactic of running down the channel as consistently as Wales did I'd wager they would lose ground nearly everytime too.

A better solution is to put the 10 out in the wider channels in defensive situations. England do this a fair bit. The effect is 2 fold,
1-It helps with the problem you're describing.
2-Ideally you don't want your creative player tiring himself out making tackles, keep him fresh for when he get's on the ball.

Casgough, Wales in the form of Tuperic attacked Ford in the wide channel and made yards, so putting him in the wide channel didn't work, the ball was passed a few times until Ford was in line of sight and was then attacked, Biggar smashed through him on a couple of occasions, sorry but to me Ford was and Davies for us if he had been selected was a liability.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=65161