Same Tim Cymru v J'ai une tour Eiffel dans mon pantalon

First topic message reminder :

Welsh squad remains the same for the showdown in Paris.

Would have swapped over Halfpenny and Williams personally

Halfpenny, North, Davies, S William, L Williams; Biggar, Webb; Evans, Owens, Francis, Ball, AW Jones (capt), Warburton, Tipuric, Moriarty.

Replacements: Baldwin, Smith, Lee, Charteris, Faletau, G Davies, S Davies, Roberts.


French team announced

Dulin - Nakaitaci, Fickou, Lamerat, Vakatawa - Lopez, Serin - Gourdon, Picamoles, Sanconnie - Maestri, Vahaamahina - Slimani, Guirado, Baille.

Les remplaçants : Chat, Atonio, Ben Arous, Le Devedec, Chouly, Trinh-Duc, Dupont, Huget

Munchkin wrote:Ah, Gwlad, the cracks are showing as you slide into a complete online meltdown

Now, I do understand that you think yourself the font of all knowledge, when it comes to the scrum. Nobody, outside you, and those fat lads at the front, could possibly understand the dark workings of the scrum. Maybe you're right! Forget about studying the multitude of camera angles, and the accompanying in-depth analysis that takes us through, step by step. It's a all a heresy!! No, the dark knowing of the mysterious workings of the sacred scrum are revealed only to those worthy guardians - the props.

So, the Wales Online expert in refereeing couldn't possibly be right. He's only a ref who probably never reached the fabled position of prop. Our own damned eyes have lied to us!! Because, you say, in the many reset scrums we witnessed, all were stationary. An illusion that only the masters of the dark arts, such as you, can see through.

I can only offer my thanks that you humble yourself to enlighten a mere mortal, such as myself  




Just kiddin. You're just spouting rubbish, ye over-inflated balloon

Assuming your maths is any better than your grammar…..

Drivel+no experience in scrum+ Walesonline as a reference tool = a Munchkin of little brain and less credibility

Gwlad wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah, Gwlad, the cracks are showing as you slide into a complete online meltdown

Now, I do understand that you think yourself the font of all knowledge, when it comes to the scrum. Nobody, outside you, and those fat lads at the front, could possibly understand the dark workings of the scrum. Maybe you're right! Forget about studying the multitude of camera angles, and the accompanying in-depth analysis that takes us through, step by step. It's a all a heresy!! No, the dark knowing of the mysterious workings of the sacred scrum are revealed only to those worthy guardians - the props.

So, the Wales Online expert in refereeing couldn't possibly be right. He's only a ref who probably never reached the fabled position of prop. Our own damned eyes have lied to us!! Because, you say, in the many reset scrums we witnessed, all were stationary. An illusion that only the masters of the dark arts, such as you, can see through.

I can only offer my thanks that you humble yourself to enlighten a mere mortal, such as myself  




Just kiddin. You're just spouting rubbish, ye over-inflated balloon

Assuming your maths is any better than your grammar…..

Drivel+no experience in scrum+ Walesonline as a reference tool = a Munchkin of little brain and less credibility

Stay down, champ. You have work in the morning, and I don't want you getting punchy   Might be too late though. You've been spouting unintelligible gibberish for some time now.

P.s it's been fun, and you can have the last word. Give it your best shot. Sure it will be devastating

Munchkin wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah, Gwlad, the cracks are showing as you slide into a complete online meltdown

Now, I do understand that you think yourself the font of all knowledge, when it comes to the scrum. Nobody, outside you, and those fat lads at the front, could possibly understand the dark workings of the scrum. Maybe you're right! Forget about studying the multitude of camera angles, and the accompanying in-depth analysis that takes us through, step by step. It's a all a heresy!! No, the dark knowing of the mysterious workings of the sacred scrum are revealed only to those worthy guardians - the props.

So, the Wales Online expert in refereeing couldn't possibly be right. He's only a ref who probably never reached the fabled position of prop. Our own damned eyes have lied to us!! Because, you say, in the many reset scrums we witnessed, all were stationary. An illusion that only the masters of the dark arts, such as you, can see through.

I can only offer my thanks that you humble yourself to enlighten a mere mortal, such as myself  




Just kiddin. You're just spouting rubbish, ye over-inflated balloon

Assuming your maths is any better than your grammar…..

Drivel+no experience in scrum+ Walesonline as a reference tool = a Munchkin of little brain and less credibility

Stay down, champ. You have work in the morning, and I don't want you getting punchy   Might be too late though. You've been spouting unintelligible gibberish for some time now.

P.s it's been fun, and you can have the last word. Give it your best shot. Sure it will be devastating

No wonder you're such a fan of Billy V, you just did the forum equivalent of what he did Saturday night. Best go clean yourself up.

Lads, lads! This bar is closing. Have yis no homes to go to?? Finish up your drinks, use the toilet and be on your way.

SecretFly wrote:Lads, lads!  This bar is closing.  Have yis no homes to go to??  Finish up your drinks, use the toilet and be on your way.

Munchkin didn't quite make it, again

SecretFly wrote:There's a nudge one way or another usually.  I detected forward movement by France mostly during those scrums.  Even that Welsh ref refered to earlier, who gave his opinion on the 20 minutes, admitted that Barnes had enough reasons to award a penalty try

I think he did too but only after the cheating French cheated Slimani back onto the field.

I'll give credit to Wales on this for not getting a prop to claim injury and force unconested scrums. But its hardly bloodgate, or hardly anything new. Teams have gamed the replacement regualtions as much as they can for years. Just get rolling benches and do away with the requirement for shenanigans or injured players forced to stay on.

Well apparently the IRB aren't even going to deal with Noves for suggesting North bit himself; i wonder of Barnes repeated what Maestri suggested on the pitch or just thought that up himself. If they are seriously suggesting North bit himself then i do hope he gets lawyered up and deals with that clear attempt to bring him and the game into disrepute.

I think it's clear that George was having a body crisis. With Welsh teeth and an English arm it was only a matter of time before this happened.

Cyril wrote:I think it's clear that George was having a body crisis. With Welsh teeth and an English arm it was only a matter of time before this happened.

Very good, Cyril

whocares wrote:Am sure he meant that. In a way you will have to prove that the French doctor lied to Barnes on purpose. Maybe send him to Guantanamo and use the polygraph if that's allowed by world rugby?

When asked by Barnes "are you telling me he needs an HIA?" or words to the effect, he grimaced/smirked, broke his eye contact with Barnes, and hesitated, before reconnecting eye contact and saying "yes". The beauty of the ref camera in the modern age...you don't have to be an interrogator to see how blatantly uncomfortable the Doctor was with the position he was put in by the coaching team, and how he was lying through his hind teeth.

What I find interesting is that an HIA can last no longer than 10 minutes, or the player either returns or is deemed unfit to play. That 10 minutes had elapsed (give or take 30 seconds, I believe), in which case, surely the medical staff had arrived at a decision relating to Antonio's suitability to return to the field of play? As there was absolutely no evidence of him preparing to return, they must have decided he was not fit to play due to a suspected head injury (rather than, say, fitness or scrummaging issues...), and surely they will be able to show evidence of this process and decision to the World Rugby when (surely!?) this is investigated.

(edit: 10 minutes of 'in play' time had elapsed, did the clock ever stop in that period, making it more than 10 'actual' minutes, i.e. he failed to come back on within the required time? I'm not sure.)

The only thing I am a little bit unsure of is whether or not Slimani could stay on as a replacement: to my mind, having already been replaced himself and only able to come back on to the field as an injury replacement, it's not quite the same as a starting player going off and staying off for someone on the bench? In which case, again, were he fit to continue, he should have been about to come back in; if he wasn't about to come back on, then he must have been injured.

If they are able to provide evidence that- having had his HIA- Antonio was unfit to play for head injury reasons, then so be it, but I hope the Doctors don't risk their careers by fabricating evidence for the sake of FFR avoiding a fine; even if they don't, ultimately it's too late, and- as with the citation for biting- a punishment for France does not give Wales justice. After the fact is too late unless you can overturn results, which frankly no one wants and is all but impossible to do.

However, the cynic in me thinks otherwise. Clearly the French coaches had told the fourth official that Antonio was "injured", and that official told Barnes via his earpiece. That's why Barnes asked Antonio whether he was injured. Antonio looked bewildered at this, as though he was blowing and shattered, he didn't look injured, and replied "no". The next scrum went down, on comes the Doctor, and off goes Antonio.

I really hope we don't set a precedent here of medical misinformation being used to gain a slight and unsporting tactical edge. Frankly, that video posted a few pages ago of Fritz's head injury for Toulon is disgraceful, and looks pretty damning for Guy Noves.

I like France, I like how they're finally becoming a proper, stylish Rugby team again after too many years in the wilderness, but last weekend has left a bitter taste in my mouth, and I'm not sure I can ever support them as a neutral again; at the very least, not until this coaching set up has left.

"(edit: 10 minutes of 'in play' time had elapsed, did the clock ever stop in that period, making it more than 10 'actual' minutes, i.e. he failed to come back on within the required time? I'm not sure.)"

Takes time to walk back to the changing room surely?

I'm surprised Barnes didnt award more pens/cards as the French certainly had dominance in the scrum when Slimani came on. The problem would have been going to uncontested scrums which wouldnt have really helped.

Fair play to Wales for bringing Francis on though and making it a contest. The Atonio incident was a complete joke, shame on you France!

One of the Welsh props said to Barnes ' We don't care who they bring on' or words to that effect. Thought that showed a positive attitude to a rather poopie end to our 6 Nations campaign.

munkian wrote:One of the Welsh props said to Barnes ' We don't care who they bring on' or words to that effect. Thought that showed a positive attitude to a rather poopie end to our 6 Nations campaign.

He said 'we're happy whatever'. Honor is often useless in the face of deceit.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm surprised Barnes didnt award more pens/cards as the French certainly had dominance in the scrum when Slimani came on. The problem would have been going to uncontested scrums which wouldnt have really helped.

Fair play to Wales for bringing Francis on though and making it a contest. The Atonio incident was a complete joke, shame on you France!

This I entirely agree with, why Barnes didn't yellow card any or all the Welsh front row after Lee mystified me, it might have eventually gone to uncontested scrums but it would also have left Wales with a lot fewer players on the pitch. I don't unconditionally agree with some on here who thought a Penalty try was deserved, and I was extremely proud of the stance that we took with Francis.

Gwlad wrote:

munkian wrote:One of the Welsh props said to Barnes ' We don't care who they bring on' or words to that effect. Thought that showed a positive attitude to a rather poopie end to our 6 Nations campaign.

He said 'we're happy whatever'. Honor is often useless in the face of deceit.

It was Rob Evans feckin eejit

wayne wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm surprised Barnes didnt award more pens/cards as the French certainly had dominance in the scrum when Slimani came on. The problem would have been going to uncontested scrums which wouldnt have really helped.

Fair play to Wales for bringing Francis on though and making it a contest. The Atonio incident was a complete joke, shame on you France!

This I entirely agree with, why Barnes didn't yellow card any or all the Welsh front row after Lee mystified me, it might have eventually gone to uncontested scrums but it would also have left Wales with a lot fewer players on the pitch. I don't unconditionally agree with some on here who thought a Penalty try was deserved, and I was extremely proud of the stance that we took with Francis.

Agree with that. There wasn't one point that I thought "thats a penalty try" and I was with a group of French who were screaming at the TV. There were just penalties, sometimes poor sets. A yellow would have been the correct call.

Well i tend to agree and sometimes Warburtons taciturn reticence is an issue. I do believe had AWJ been out there - a much more disagreeable character all round - he might have voiced his concerns to Barnes. Barnes - despite being a buffoon - must have known exactly what was going on but he played along ever so nicely, even feeding the French 'Doctor' the opportunity to confirm a HIA was required. He also seemed to recognize Maestri's concerns that George Jaws North had suddenly decided to snack on his own appendage mid game stating worlds like 'if he has bitten himself we'll deal with that'. One assumes that this was as a result of Maestri suggesting the same although I wouldn't out it past Barnes to suggest such a scenario himself. It is amazing to me after Bloodgate just how unscrupulous medical staff can be, perhaps it should be renamed the Hypocratic Oath.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

wayne wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm surprised Barnes didnt award more pens/cards as the French certainly had dominance in the scrum when Slimani came on. The problem would have been going to uncontested scrums which wouldnt have really helped.

Fair play to Wales for bringing Francis on though and making it a contest. The Atonio incident was a complete joke, shame on you France!

This I entirely agree with, why Barnes didn't yellow card any or all the Welsh front row after Lee mystified me, it might have eventually gone to uncontested scrums but it would also have left Wales with a lot fewer players on the pitch. I don't unconditionally agree with some on here who thought a Penalty try was deserved, and I was extremely proud of the stance that we took with Francis.

Agree with that. There wasn't one point that I thought "thats a penalty try" and I was with a group of French who were screaming at the TV. There were just penalties, sometimes poor sets. A yellow would have been the correct call.

What exactly was it that suggested to you no Pen try?

There was never enough forward momentum, France never looked like pushing over.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:There was never enough forward momentum, France never looked like pushing over.

That's what i thought and Barnes told Maestri the same.

You also cannot dismiss how important the decision to replace Antonio with Slimani really was.

France received a couple of penalties- frankly, incorrectly- early in the game where Wales were judged to have collapsed and not bound properly successively. There were serious question marks over whether he Barnes got those first few penalties against the Welsh scrum right (some he did, some he didn't), but it put in his mind that Wales were the 'weaker' scrum, and it set the tone.

However, Wales finally started to get some scrum penalties their own way, as the French pack tired a bit and- without that forward shove that Barnes seemed to be rewarding early on- they were pinged for wheeling and boring in. The final two scrums before both French props were replaced resulted in penalties to Wales. Slimani, a very good scrummager, was replaced by France, as Rob Evans was getting the better of him, and Antonio would offer a lot more bulk in the loose.

Let's fast forward to the 80th minute, and have a look at how problematic this is. Slimani had been off the field for nearly 30 minutes of in play time, which would be quite a bit more in 'real' time. Rob Evans, on the other hand, had played 80 minutes of an absolutely gruelling Test match, and to my mind was one of the best Welsh players on the pitch. His work at the fringes of the breakdown- tackling and, in particular, carrying- was phenomenal for a prop. Wales had also lost two second rows, and had Faletau and Charteris playing lock: not only is there huge height disadvantage there, but Charteris isn't a great scrummager, and Faletau certainly isn't from that position!

Having put an mammoth shift in, Wales have to face two scrums: one for Faletau's knock on from the restart, the other more centrally and as a result of Warburton's kick out on the full. The second led to France eventually getting up to the Welsh try line and receiving a penalty for Wales lying on- opting for the 5 metre scrum- just before time elapsed.

First scrum, Wales engaged early, which is understandable considering the noise and the nerves. Free kick, scrum option taken. Antonio goes head to head with Rob Evans again, and the scrum collapses (to me, it could very, very easily have been a Welsh penalty considering his bind and angle were all pointing towards the floor, and he pulled the scrum down). Not a penalty, however, to either team, and the scrum is reset.

Having seen Antonio really struggle (this is absolutely key), on comes the Doctor (clearly this must be pre meditated, as Antonio looked absolutely shattered, but not injured), who is quickly brushed away by Antonio. Barnes asks whether he is alright at this point. Reset scrum is taken. It collapses- both Evans and Antonio looked to be pushing early- and a new scrum called after 80 minutes, which is allowed as it is the 'same' scrum that was awarded before the clock went red. This is where Antonio is removed, and Slimani comes on.

At absolutely no point did Antonio and France look like they would have the dominance over the Welsh scrum that they eventually did until Slimani came on. Certainly, Antonio was a liability, and they couldn't guarantee successive scrum penalties that would lead to a penalty try, or get enough dominance to go for a pushover.

You really cannot dismiss the fact that Antonio leaving the field was the difference between what looked like a 50:50 contest at best for France (Rob Evans would likely have hammered him had the second rows not been Charteris and Faletau!!!) and Wales getting a bit of a pasting.

However, it doesn't end there. Slimani, of course, gained a few penalties against Rob Evans early on, but also gave a few away once he began to tire. Having had the best part of an hour to recover, he's infinitely fresher than Evans (and Antonio). This is where the removal of Antonio becomes grossly unfair, as effectively one prop has had to play against three 'fresh' players in the course of the game.

The Welsh scrum did then subsequently struggle, however- like the early part of the game- Barnes rewarded forward momentum above all else, including binding on the arm, body angle and driving straight, and popping up in the scrum. Every single time, Barnes failed to referee the contest at the scrum in a way that would have minimised Slimani and France's forward momentum, just as he had done in the early stages of the game, and it had only been as a result of the French props tiring that Wales got anything from Barnes. Unable to get that that early hit in due to fatigue, the French scrum resorted to wheeling, boring in, and binding on the arm: in short, everything they could do to not scrummage legally to try and regain the platform they had early in the game.

Of course, the only thing that changed between the Welsh concessions at the scrum and the French concessions was forward momentum, hence France were bemused when they were trying to scrummage the same way, but now being penalised instead of rewarded. This is why Slimani was pulled off initially. Now back on, and rested enough to get that forward momentum once more, the same binding tactic that allowed him stability against Evans at the start of the game worked again, and every single time Barnes penalised Wales for going backwards.

To be honest, it's a desperate concoction. Yes, Wales were dropping the scrums. However, take it in context. Rob Evans is absolutely shattered, facing a player who has just had the chance to recover and regain some energy and should be nowhere near the pitch. He's also got Faletau locking the scrum behind him, which means that initial hit from France is gaining even more traction than it normally would were Ball and AWJ in there, and as Slimani binds on the arm and drives in, out, up, and down on Evans to maintain that forward momentum, it's basically about as far away from a fair contest as you could imagine.

Finally, having flogged himself far longer than any prop should have to, Rob Evans is replaced by Nicky Smith as he is clearly running on empty. As we saw against Italy, Nicky Smith is no Test match scrummager, and from that point on the result is pretty much a done deal.

I have no real issue with the yellow cards or penalties once the ball had come out of the scrum. Wales should have been savvy enough to realise that- once the ball was out- they should have done everything in their power to avoid having to face a 5m scrum. They should have backed their defence to be disciplined enough to hold France out and force a handling error, as we saw when France moved it wide where North was presumably bitten, without conceding a penalty at the rucks. Even holding it up over the line would have won the game.

I think Barnes ultimately bottled calling the game, either way, but he wasn't helped at all by his officials and the situation. The French cheated in getting Antonio off the pitch. They then 'cheated' in the scrums, albeit it's a far more acceptable and ultimately subjective version than the aforementioned. I don't think he really could have given a penalty try considering just how dubious France's scrum dominance really was. However, if he's aware that France are gaining their forward momentum by questionable tactics, if he considers Wales to be infringing by dropping the scrum and France haven't done enough to infringe themselves, he should have the bottle to give the penalty try. As it was, I think he recognised that he'd tied himself in knots, with Wales doing everything they could to not scrummage, and France doing everything they could to make Wales go backwards.

I would rather the game ended as it did- with France actually scoring a try- rather than a penalty try being awarded by Barnes due to Slimani's dominance. He should never have been there, nor was France's scrum dominance particularly legal. It was a unique situation, and Barnes clearly felt the pressure, but he did the 'right' thing in trying to let the players decide the game, as it should be. It's sad that, unfortunately, the French players were aided by their coaches and medical staff in a way that could bring the ethics of the sport into question.

The whole thing leaves a bitter taste. I would have loved for Wales to win having found themselves in that situation at the end, despite not playing fantastically, and I certainly thought they deserved to, as they were the better team for the final 60 minutes. In hindsight, that early shove on 79 minutes- where they gave away a free kick- was hugely unfortunate. Not only did it mean that Wales actively avoided the 'hit' (another area where France could build up that go forward) as any mistiming would result in a cheap penalty (which actually happened), but more importantly had they conceded their first early drive after the 80 minutes, it would be a free kick to France, and the match would be over. It's horribly cynical, akin to deliberately throwing a crooked lineout to retain the ball and end the match, but frankly, it pales in comparison to faking an injury.

Rant over!

As another quick aside, the French TV director has to be questioned, too. And Fitzgibbon. Barnes asks to review the 'bite', and waits around staring at himself on the big screen for an age.

Nothing is shown on the screen, and Fitzgibbon tells Barnes "there is no clear angle" or whatever. To my mind, there needs to be much, much clearer protocol surrounding the TMOs. Rugby League has it spot on, with the video ref narrating the play frame by frame clearly and accurately for the viewers and on pitch referee to hear. A decision is usually reached very quickly, with a few angles slowed down frame by frame if necessary. Union is still in the dark ages here, with the directors taking ages to actually find the clip, then running through it too quickly, or too slowly, repeatedly showing angles that everyone can see are useless having seen them once, and then there's a lot of silence and umming and ahhing between ref and TMO as to who should actually be adjudicating. It also isn't helped when there's often a language/accent/transmission problem, which- again- seems to be annoyingly common. The whole thing is far too variable.

Barnes saw literally no video evidence of the potential offence. I accept that, as it has transpired, no clear angle has shown the bite, but still, how often is it that a team plays in France and a potential infringement against a French player gets shown up on the big screen which gets the crowd booing and the ref goes to the TMO to see what the fuss is. Yet, on the other hand- at times like this- the director suddenly cannot find the incident the referee has asked to review that could show French foul play.

This may be a case of the boy who cried wolf, but it happens far too frequently in France- particularly at club level- to sit easily. On top of that, I would much rather have had Barnes actually see what Fitzgibbon was reviewing whilst it was happening, and for Barnes to then go back to Fitzgibbon if necessary as a result of him not being sure.

The only video evidence shown to anyone outside of that broadcasting van was after Barnes had been told he couldn't review it. If there had been a clear angle, the television director did everything in his power to not show it to Barnes. Again, not Barnes's fault.

They should spend less time fetishising their stupid super slo mo shots, and more time on actually aiding the game when it matters.

Also, for Antonio, see Atonio haha

I think it's Atonio.......agree on his scrummaging though, it's not great.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Not only should the obviously intentional knock-on by Wales have went to the TMO, the so-called intentional knock-on from France was in the act of making a tackle. How Barnes came to the conclusion that the guy did that on purpose is beyond me. Vakatawa may well have knew what he was doing, but I have no idea how anyone watching could know one way or the other. His eyes were fixed on the player he was tackling before committing himself.

You can't assume what is in the player's head when there is little evidence that he was doing anything other than making a tackle.

I'm going to try to approach this one with a bit of reason.

In real time, Vakatawa's movement looked like a dyed in the wool deliberate knock on: yellow card and penalty try, no question. It was the final pass to North, and as you take Vakatawa "out" of the equation in these situations, no one is making that cover tackle. Ten minutes in the bin, conversion in front of the posts.

On some of the angles on the video evidence, that initial viewpoint- that his arm had come swinging round and slapped the ball out of its flight path- seemed to be supported. However, all of a sudden, they showed some other angles where you see Vakatawa's head and body position in a different light, and rather than the deliberate slap I initially thought it was, it suddenly appeared far less cut and dry.

The problem, now, for Barnes, is what to do. In the end, he compromised where he shouldn't have. Having decided it was a yellow card, he absolutely should have given a penalty try, no question. It's scandalous that he didn't. However, I don't believe you can give a yellow card for that. Even though he is 'deliberately' wrapping himself around the passer, and knows that this makes it more likely he could knock the pass on, it's incredibly hard to prove intent/it sets a worrying precedent where every knock on in a smothering tackle becomes the potential for a penalty.

Honestly, I would rather have seen tha given a knock on than a penalty. If you deem it a penalty, then you put him in the bin and you give a penalty try.

The difference between Jonathan Davies's and Vakatawa's was that Vakatawa's stopped a certain try (despite what Barnes and Fitzgibbon decided, North scores there). I'm not sure JD2 is stopping a dead cert of a try, and therefore- if it is a penalty- it's not a guaranteed yellow card/penalty try like Vakatawa's. To my mind, it also wasn't a clear slap down, and therefore a yellow card would have been very harsh.

I'd like to rewatch both, but frankly I think knock ons for both would have been ok. Jonathan Davies's probably hould have been no more than a penalty if it's deemed at all careless. If it's deliberate, then it's a yellow card. If Vakatawa's is careless and therefore avoidable- as it arguably was- then it's the whole lot; penalty try and a yellow card. If it's "deliberate" (i.e. slap down rather than just general attempt to make your body into a barrier), then this decision becomes even more emphatic.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think it's Atonio.......agree on his scrummaging though, it's not great.

Yeah, sorry, I was correcting myself there.

majesticimperialman wrote:I would like to ask every and any Welsh Fan about the Welsh coaches Rob Howley and Neil Jenkins. It as been known for some time now the Rob Howley would after the 6ns join the Lions squad.

It as now come about that Neil Jenkins is also joining the Lions squad.

Now the 6ns is over, are they both ( now with the Lions squad/team) or are they both still with the Wales squad having to do reports/inquest for the WRU.

When do they join the Lions squad?

I think the Welsh attack has looked better this 6Ns than it has for a long time. It's nowhere near where it should be, but I've been relatively pleased with the evolution of the attacking play. Alex King's presence has certainly made a much bigger difference than the Blues' coach who was brought in for the Autumn. Who knows who is responsible, really? Could it be that Howley as Head Coach is now having a greater say than he could do under Gatland, and therefore the players are getting the ball to Halfpenny/North/Williams more often? Is the interim attack coach making a big difference? Is it simply the fact that the players have now had more time to play together, and therefore looking a little bit more cohesive than they did in the Autumn? Probably a combination of the lot. I think Scott Williams had been very good in the tight- attack and defence- prior to the France game, but was really hoping for him to open up and show his running ability to get that break that could set the team alight. We saw it with him and Webb against Ireland. However, he didn't play well against France, and dropped a few balls where he shouldn't have, and the coaches took the opportunity to hook him off for Jamie Roberts quite early in the second half.

Howley is really on a hiding to nothing. He can't overhaul the team- even if he wanted to- as there are certain systems and principles that are almost hard wired into the team at this stage. Some are still very good, some are ambivalent, some are bad. One problem with his mandate is that Gatland is of course returning; he can't exactly try and lay down foundations now that are likely to undo/replace some of the systems and principles that Gatland will want to be in place when he returns post-Lions. In effect, the position of an interim Head Coach is not easy, particularly as he has been Gatland's number 2, will return to being Gatland's number 2, and will eventually hope to get the Head Coach proper once Gatland leaves.

However, the gradual evolution Wales have shown has been promising. It's also the correct tactic. Had a completely new coaching team (i.e. not interim) come in, revolution rather than evolution in the first season would have been foolish, and ultimately unlikely to produce better results, as this generation of players are still the best available to Wales, and with no obvious Test ready youngsters/alternatives to step up, if you ask these old players to suddenly play a different way, they will struggle to did it with any accuracy, intensity, or effectiveness. After all, this has been the most competitive 6Ns for a long time, with only Italy being non competitive.

Moving away from the reliance on Jamie Roberts has been a positive, albeit Scott Williams hasn't really shone like many would have hoped. Jon Davies has looked a lot better than usual, the best defensive 13 in the tournament, and though there was one very loose pass against France, his distribution has been pretty good without being what you'd hope for from your outside centre, which is a bit more trickery and the ability to put your wingers into a gap. They've missed that final pass, that sense of understanding and subtlty that is the difference between a team that gets itself into the 22 and looks promising, and a team that gets into the 22 and feels, believes, and even knows that- if they get quick ball- they will score. That's a question of mentality and belief, experience and playing time together as units, and of course tactics. I do think there needs to be a bit more of the kind of 'options' we saw that led to Liam Williams' try against England; the subtlty of hand that means dummy runs actually hold defenders and put other players into try scoring gaps. Likewise, although North's first try against Ireland was good, it's a try off first phase. These are good, but Wales need to rediscover their try scoring ability once the game breaks up, once several phases have been strung together. They're still a bit too systemic in that though the ability is there on first phase, the confidence in open play clearly isn't. Look at Scotland's model: it took them a few years of attacking potential to get to where they are now, which is a pretty potent attack when they have the platform. Wales do have the platform, and they do have the counter attack, but just as the missed tries in the final minute against Italy, and the missed pass counter attack against England show, there are lots of fine margins that resulted in good moves narrowly not becoming tries, but equally they aren't creating enough of those moments to make up for their innacuracies that mean they're still coming away with enough points to win games to compensate for these missed passes. Again, it's a case of progression: the team will get more accurate in their back play the more they play together/the more the 'right' attacking players are selected, and equally, the more the more they develop their gameplan, the more opportunities they will create. It's a twofold things, finding an equilibrium between tight play and game management (consider Wales probably had the best defensive system in the whole tournament, why would you throw the towel in in this area?) on the one hand, and opening up to utilise the attacking talents they have in the team and score the tries that will win them games now that other teams have improved and Wales cannot rely on a scrum and kicker to win them games. Only now are they really buying into it, by dropping Jamie Roberts, in my opinion, so it's a good start.

I would be surprised if Howley wasn't in liason with Gatland already- naturally- but I imagine his time will be spent over the next few weeks dissecting the 6Ns and laying the groundwork for the Pacific Island Tour this Summer. Once we get towards the end of the season, he'll presumably be doing a twofold job, becoming more and more Lions centric. I dislike that Wales will have had three 'Head Coaches' in 12 months, but that's the hand we've been dealt. I do feel like the team has trod water since 2013, with Gatland turning his focus to the RWC after the Lions Tour and effectively not developing Wales at all in the 14/15 season prior to the Summer training camps. He's also now done likewise after the RWC, with Wales in a bit of a limbo post 2016 6Ns, which really they ought to have won considering the other teams' attitude to rebuilding. The worry is, again, that Gatland will let Wales have a fallow year in 2018 in order to try and go out with a bang in the 2019 RWC, and- after the prestige of the Lions Tour in NZ- put himself in the frame for the All Blacks' job. In short, it does feel that Wales have signed them up for over half a decade of mismanagment, and whilst I understand the personal ambition of Warren Gatland, there should have been some forward planning by the WRU to ensure Rob Howley was given a fair crack at being the 'interim' Head Coach, and not have to resort to letting him go on another Lions Tour as Gatland couldn't convince Gregor Townsend.

The Welsh goalkicking has been a bit mixed. Halfpenny doesn't look like the kicker he was before his pre-World Cup injury, however his performance in France was sublime, so perhaps it's too early to say anything definitive. I'm stuck between thinking we should back our outside half- who is in many ways Halfpenny's equal, bar distance, as a goalkicker- and hand him the kicking duties, as I believe when he's on song it improves his all round game. He's not the running or distributing outside half we've been used to in Wales for the last decade and a half, but he's certainly a very good Test match player, and will be Wales's outside half for the next few years at least. With that in mind, I'm not quite sure why so much favouritism is given to Halfpenny. Or rather, I understand it (Lions, historic kicking performance, his main utility at Test level, let Biggar concentrate on his basics and don't add in goalkicking that could be a curse as much as a blessing for his all round game), but I don't particularly like it. I also think Biggar will/should stay in the team longer than Halfpenny. To my mind, there isn't as obvious a replacement for Biggar- either as starting 10, or as #22 once Sam Davies overtakes him- as there is for Halfpenny (Liam Williams, Hallam Amos, Anscombe/Patchell at a push look adequate where they don't at 10 for Wales, Matthew Morgan, and then any youngsters or wingers able to step across. At 10, other than Sam Davies, there's only really Dan Jones or possibly Patchell playing for the regions who could be good enough Wales, and neither is ready nor guaranteed to make the step up). With Halfpenny having taken the French Euro, as well as suffering with his injury problems, if he stays abroad, we should no longer hold him on a pedestal, which unfortunately seems to be the case.

The kicking in play has been pretty good, I thought. I'm not sure how accountable Neil Jenkins can be for Sam Warburton booting it out on the full in the dying moments against France, or the miscommunication and panic that led to Jonathan Davies being forced to kick as Biggar was getting back into position against England, but there we go. On the whole, I think our kicking game has been pretty good. What hasn't been so good is our receipt of the opposition's kicking game. For the most part, I think this is just circumstance: Ireland are great at the aerial game, North is absolutely gash and tries to catch as he tackles (i.e. by snatching with his fingers). The worry is Liam Williams and Halfpenny- effectively two 15s- have been poor versions of their normal selves. Who knows what this is down to? Hopefully just a succession of mistakes rather than anything more terminal relating to defensive positioning and therefore not being well set to take the catch. I thought Cuthbert did well against England who targeted him at the restarts. I think the kicking in field tactic clearly works for Wales, as it has done for the last decade. It worked against England, minimising their power at the maul which got them lots of headway, and we conceded a maul penalty at a key time in the game where we didn't have to that ended up being a turning point. Keeping it in play against them and backing our defensive line played dividends right up until Daly's try. There are mitigating circumstance there, albeit JD2 should probably have put the ball off the field. Nevertheless, had he handed England a lineout within the Welsh 22 (hard to get it any futher and guarantee it goes out with a left footed kick from that position), England stood a pretty good chance of mauling a penalty out of Wales and getting the lead that way. The same in field tactic worked well against Ireland, our defence being as good as it has for a long, long time. Wales clearly need to score more tries, and as they're developing their game, little dinks/grubbers can be the difference between the lateral phases they seem to string together, and that key break/try. Other than Liam Williams (who is trying them) and Halfpenny (who isn't), they don't really have the players to do this outside of Biggar. Definitely an area to work on, but I also think- at this stage- Wales are overhauling an attacking system that is very used to running straight lines or relying on set piece strike moves, and the more they 'learn' to play heads up, offloading rugby with each other by keeping ball in hand, rather than forcing it through a kick, the better.

For the Lions, I don't think Neil Jenkins will be a massive difference. Nice to have a Lions 'Legend' there for the players, though, I think. Just adds to that gravitas of the Lions as somehow unique and special, as something that has a legacy that last long after the playing days are over. He's also quite a likeable man, it seems: you don't want a coaching staff full of Gatlands and Farrells etc.

Some people have too much time on their hands.

Over 11,000 posts in under 3 and a half years? I agree.

I think it was Serin coming round for the cover tackle after the knock on which prevented the penalty try.

miaow wrote:Over 11,000 posts in under 3 and a half years? I agree.

bravo!

Lol Davies best defensive 13. Dreaming.

Miaow being an Ospreys supporter one part of that game disheartened me, lots of print time has been wasted IMO, on the Vakatawa knock on.

How long and how many yards did Dan Biggar have the ball in his hands before passing to North, he should have passed the ball a 1/2 second or 1/2 yard earlier and George would have sailed in. I know there are a couple of French players nearby but they wouldn't have stopped him. The sad thing for me is that I've seen Dan do those passes in the Osprey shirt a number of times. Twice he's done it with AWJ it has resulted in tries for both of them and I remember Tipuric doing it with Cuthbert in the 2013 thrashing of England.
Finally I don't think Dan deserves to go on this Lions tour, Sexton, Farrell and Russell deserve to go before him, although I would have him before revolving door Ford, and for the Wales tour to the Pacific, I would give Sam Davies first option even though his tackling is nowhere near as good as Dan's he deserves his opportunity.

Wayne

I agree, unfortunately those are the fine margins between Pro12/Europe and Test match rugby. Biggar's worked hard on his playmaking, but he's not a 'natural' at it, and the finest of margins can make all the difference between a try scoring pass and taking just a little bit too long for the pass to go to hand. Sexton showed his limitations as an outside half who can think on his feet. I don't really think that's a huge problem though, as Biggar has lots of other areas where he's better than Stephen Jones, Hook...frankly all the Welsh 10s in the professional era, in particular how good he is as an open field and goal kicker.

It's also not just his fault, but the team as a whole, that we're not scoring tries. With a better footballer at 12, a lot of the pressure would be taken off him to create, and we could have Webb dictating from 9, Biggar playing his normal game from 10, and then a 12 who can think and playmake as and when he's needed to and given the ball by Biggar. Think Henson in his prime!

Clearly that 12 isn't Roberts. I'd hoped it would be Scott Williams, and although I think he played well this 6Ns, he struggled to get his creative and running game going with the limited time and space he had. He's definitely a better option than Roberts, but along with Jon Davies, suddenly there's a problem as none of our 10, 12, and 13 are 'natural' passers/playmakers of the ball. It's a reason why North and Liam Williams aren't looking great, as they're not being put in the positions that Joseph, Watson, Daly etc. are being put in by Ford and Farrell. That extra time, space and momentum is massive. Eventually, Sam Davies is obviously the answer, he looks like he has everything we could want from an attacking outside half, and has the kicking ability, too. England can still win with Ford being a massive defensive weakness who concedes easy yards against the opposition. Biggar learnt how to tackle having been useless when he first started for the Ospreys. I hope Sam Davies steps up too.

I'd take Biggar over Russell. I don't think he has the composure to play the All Blacks just yet. Also, as neither is going to be a first or second choice, I think I'd rather have Biggar playing that bit part role. He's got a bit more fire in him, as well. In any case, I think Ford will go, Sexton will start, and Farrell with play 12/cover 10 if need be. Two 10s, one 10/12, and then Biggar just a short plane journey away with Wales if injury occurs.

I looked up the law regarding whether Wales could have deliberately ended the game by conceding a free kick at the scrum. Apparently not.

It's effectively the same rule as a drop out restart (most obvious examples being Scotland against Wales in 2010, and the precursor to Hartley's abuse of Barnes/Youngs that got him sent off).

The ball has to go live. If a free kick occurs in open play, that ends the game. However, a free kick directly/deliberately sent to touch does not count, and becomes a turnover of possession. The same is therefore true if a team deliberately engages early in a scrum to avoid the ball being put in (once it's in, it's live, so if it's knocked on, of course, it's game over if no advantage). Likewise, you can't deliberately throw the ball not straight (i.e. the hooker throwing it to the outside half), but, presumably, might be able to get away with it if you can make it look accidental? I'm not too sure, it seems ambiguous, much like the restarted kick, intent comes into it, and that immediately makes it a grey area.

This is the article for anyone interested:

http://www.rugby365.com/latest-news/70533-law-discussion-exact-time

miaow wrote:Wayne

I agree, unfortunately those are the fine margins between Pro12/Europe and Test match rugby. Biggar's worked hard on his playmaking, but he's not a 'natural' at it, and the finest of margins can make all the difference between a try scoring pass and taking just a little bit too long for the pass to go to hand. Sexton showed his limitations as an outside half who can think on his feet. I don't really think that's a huge problem though, as Biggar has lots of other areas where he's better than Stephen Jones, Hook...frankly all the Welsh 10s in the professional era, in particular how good he is as an open field and goal kicker.

It's also not just his fault, but the team as a whole, that we're not scoring tries. With a better footballer at 12, a lot of the pressure would be taken off him to create, and we could have Webb dictating from 9, Biggar playing his normal game from 10, and then a 12 who can think and playmake as and when he's needed to and given the ball by Biggar. Think Henson in his prime!

Clearly that 12 isn't Roberts. I'd hoped it would be Scott Williams, and although I think he played well this 6Ns, he struggled to get his creative and running game going with the limited time and space he had. He's definitely a better option than Roberts, but along with Jon Davies, suddenly there's a problem as none of our 10, 12, and 13 are 'natural' passers/playmakers of the ball. It's a reason why North and Liam Williams aren't looking great, as they're not being put in the positions that Joseph, Watson, Daly etc. are being put in by Ford and Farrell. That extra time, space and momentum is massive. Eventually, Sam Davies is obviously the answer, he looks like he has everything we could want from an attacking outside half, and has the kicking ability, too. England can still win with Ford being a massive defensive weakness who concedes easy yards against the opposition. Biggar learnt how to tackle having been useless when he first started for the Ospreys. I hope Sam Davies steps up too.

I'd take Biggar over Russell. I don't think he has the composure to play the All Blacks just yet. Also, as neither is going to be a first or second choice, I think I'd rather have Biggar playing that bit part role. He's got a bit more fire in him, as well. In any case, I think Ford will go, Sexton will start, and Farrell with play 12/cover 10 if need be. Two 10s, one 10/12, and then Biggar just a short plane journey away with Wales if injury occurs.

Miaow, the big talk down with us is the idea of the 2 of them doing the 10 12 axis as Ford and Farrell, we have tried it a number of times in the 10 15 channel with Dan in the 10, but most of the talk is for Dan to go to 12, give him a year and Sam will be far superior to Ford, sorry can't agree with you over Russell.

That's fair enough about Russell, if Gatland wasn't coaching I think he'd stand a good chance, but we all know what Gatland looks for in certain positions.

I think it's hard to compare the Pro12 to the Aviva Premiership at times, but I agree that Sam Davies has- to my mind at least- more to than Ford did at that stage. Ford was messed about with Leicester to be fair, but both players were thought of highly at U20 level.

What do you think of Sam Davies's kicking? Obviously he has that beautiful diagonal kick he likes to make back into the opposition's 22. What about his kicking under pressure, and his goalkicking?

I don't think Biggar could play 12 to be honest. I don't think he has the speed or the strength. You still need someone who can smash it up if the outside half gives you slow ball or the pass is a poor one. Scott Williams can do this. Roberts can of course, as could Henson. It's why Farrell works so well as a 12 as well. Biggar's just not that kind of player. It might work for the Ospreys when you're playing the bottom 6 of the Pro12 and able to dominate up front and give him that platform, but I wouldn't want to see it for Wales to be honest.

I like the 10/15 combination you have going on. Matavesi will be a massive loss for you next season, what a signing he's been. I'd expect you to maybe line up with Biggar at 10, Hook at 12, Beck at 13, and Sam Davies at 15 next season. Correct me if I'm wrong. Some attacking talent there though.

Sam's percentages for goalkicking are up amongst the best in the Pro 12 this season, and as you say his diagonal kicking is superb, he did have a tendency last season and previously to have some of his positional kicks charged down, I don't think it has happened this season, it's the tackling issues that worry me, that is why the talk of Dan to 12 is helping, his defence is as good as any 10 in our League, and with the dexterity of Sam in the close encounters is something to behold.

Yes Matavesi has been a good signing but the lure of cash has been too strong, but IMO we are well covered in the centre unless we have a serious injury crisis, with the likes of Beck, Hook, Allen, Fonotia Watkin, John, Joe Thomas, Spratt for the lesser competitions and possibly Biggar as well that should do us.

I'd forgotten about Watkin, great prospect, and that you'd signed Allen, too. Feels a bit like overkill, but will be interesting to see how he develops in an environment that seems a lot better at bringing the best out of players than Cardiff has been for a long time.

Wayne you are well covered at centre. Kieron Williams looks good at U20 level too I believe he is one of your academy boys? I'd read that Joe Thomas had signed a pro contract a few weeks back but I haven't heard of him so that was a bit of a surprise for me.

mikey_dragon wrote:Wayne you are well covered at centre. Kieron Williams looks good at U20 level too I believe he is one of your academy boys? I'd read that Joe Thomas had signed a pro contract a few weeks back but I haven't heard of him so that was a bit of a surprise for me.

Mikey Joe played for Wales U20s last season IIRC as both centre and wing, and he played for both Development Competitions this season and showed up very well, that was the reason for the Full time contract, I would of thought he'll play the same next season and if our normal injuries occur in the International periods as well.

https://rugbyballs.org/2017/03/20/wayne-through-the-looking-glass/

I would back Russel to do well in. NZ, he won't make the test side unless there are injuries, but a Lions pack should provide a great platform in the midweek games and the Lions will have some great strike runners.

Russell will find the space to put those runners over the line. I'd take him purely because he offers something none of the other stand offs offer, a spark. Sexton will go, and to be honest so will Biggar, I think Russel could and should be the 3rd option with farrell travelling as a 12.

Russell won't tour. Farrell provides cover and in all honesty I really hope Sexton stays for because i dont think w shave anyone else capable of dong the job and if he's injured i'd put Farrell at 10. Ford is a defensive liability and Biggar plays way too deep. 10 is a real problem for the Lions.

Gwlad wrote:Russell won't tour. Farrell provides cover and in all honesty I really hope Sexton stays for because i dont think w shave anyone else capable of dong the job and if he's injured i'd put Farrell at 10. Ford is a defensive liability and Biggar plays way too deep. 10 is a real problem for the Lions.

If 10 is a real problem, why not take Russel?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Russell won't tour. Farrell provides cover and in all honesty I really hope Sexton stays for because i dont think w shave anyone else capable of dong the job and if he's injured i'd put Farrell at 10. Ford is a defensive liability and Biggar plays way too deep. 10 is a real problem for the Lions.

If 10 is a real problem, why not take Russel?

Yeah i know but i don't think he is up to it. Nor do i think Biggar is up to it but if i had to pick from Biggar, Ford, Russell or Jackson I'd pick Farrell. Obviously one will go and Russell may get the nod.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lol Davies best defensive 13. Dreaming.

Satistical team of the tournament, always a prety good indicator, and most of the players there- aside from perhaps the wingers and 10- were stand out performers. Take a look at the 13:

http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/news/31584.php#Flhoy4Qm8tdpv6RO.97

Comfortably the best defensive 13. Also provided solid go forward in attack, often off average ball. Only Lamerat and Joseph were better in attack, but neither as good defensively, Joseph certainly not.

And I'm the one who's dreaming...

Nice joke miaow. I like it.