Wales vs Ireland - Round 5

First topic message reminder :


Teams TBA Thursday the 14th March

Referee Angus Gardner (Australia)
Assistant 1 Ben O'Keeffe (New Zelaand)
Assistant 2 Karl Dickson (England)
TMO Marius Jonker (South Africa)


Wales:

L Williams (Saracens); North (Ospreys), J Davies (Scarlets), Parkes (Scarlets), Adams (Worcester); Anscombe (Cardiff Blues), G Davies (Scarlets); R Evans (Scarlets), Owens (Scarlets), Francis (Exeter Chiefs), Beard (Ospreys), AW Jones (Ospreys, capt), Navidi (Cardiff Blues), Tipuric (Ospreys), Moriarty (Dragons).

Replacements: Dee (Dragons), Smith (Ospreys), D Lewis (Cardiff Blues), Ball (Scarlets), Wainwright (Dragons), A Davies (Ospreys), Biggar (Northampton), Watkin (Ospreys).



Ireland:


Kearney; Earls, Ringrose, Aki, Stockdale; Sexton, Murray; Healy, Best (capt), Furlong, Beirne, Ryan, O'Mahony, O'Brien, Stander.

Replacements: Scannell, Kilcoyne, Porter, Roux, Conan, Marmion, Carty, Larmour.

They aren’t depleted.

You're saying no NZ, Oz or SA players currently playing in the north would have a chance of making the World cup squads? Id say there are numerous. Whether theyd get picked or not isnt the isssue, its that they are included in potential selection.

The reasons for that I'm well aware of, and the 'blame' if any is shared, but nonetheless, there are dozens of players of true test quality playing club rugby in the NH that wont be at the tournament. Cant say that about players in southern comps.

Anyway, its a head banging argument, for me southern teams must repel the 6N sides at this years WCup or face an ever faster demise as all roads in pro rugby start heading north.

But SA and Oz select players for their international team who playing in the NH...? Weird point to make (we all know why).

Reading this is painful stuff. You're way too ideological Taylor. You're not a million miles away, but it's a bit like speaking to a racist, or someone with a rigid political belief, or someone who's a massive fan of a popstar (or a rugby team). You look at phenomena and, instead of considering all the mitigating circumstances, the de facto answer is 'NH bad, SH good'. It's the same kind of simplistic, reductive nonsense you encounter in any deeply ideological person. It's impossible to have a discussion on 'fair' ground.

There are so many holes/problems with points you've made (with serious confidence) it's not worth raking over them - cba to be honest - but no-one's doubting a. the quality in the SH and b. NZ's unique position in rugby and world sport.

The fact is, Wal, Ire, and Eng have all been pretty good rugby teams for the best part of a decade. Certainly, it was a lot better than the first 10 years or so of pro rugby, when only Eng were competitive/able to beat SANZAR. But they're not perfect, and there's no doubting SA and Oz rugby has suffered for different reasons - politically and culturally - making the NH improvement seem more dramatic.

Eng in particular have the potential to be the second best team/nation in the world on a consistent basis. If they had a better domestic set-up, and a really good international coach, they would surpass Ire and Wal. Likewise, Fra have the potential to be right up there with Eng as well - they seemingly haven't really changed anything since the early to mid 00s and their domestic situation is even worse than in SA. Lots of money, yes, but French test rugby is valued less in the Top 14 than the Springboks are in the SA Super Rugby franchises, there's no doubt about it.

So it goes two ways - which would be obvious to see if you weren't simply looking for 'NH bad, SH good' in everything. Fra could/should be an amazing team. They have some really good players as well - their depth and potential is as good as Eng yet they hit a glass ceiling playing in the Top 14 and the whole culture there seems toxic to individual and collective growth.

Wal are struggling and I'd expect this is about as good as we can get but Ire are certainly still growing and the money in and around Dublin has really helped the sport boom by my understanding. They'll be at the top table for years to come.

As for this RWC, I said SA would surpass Eng before it - a brave prediction and one I'm not sure has quite come true, but it's close. They're a few key positions away from being a quality side: they have a big, powerful pack, but not sure they've got a top quality core through the team that stands out as better than Eng/Ire/Wal's cores. Pollard looks like the best 10 to me, but too inconsistent. Has the potential to be brilliant though. Marx is great but issues with throwing maybe? Who's behind old man Vermeulen at 8? Not that they will be needed necessarily...but he's not the force he was and he's also a bit limited to a certain style. Kolisi's a good player, the locks are monsters and Etzebeth seems to give them something extra. Faf de Klerk is great but I'm not sure he really suits the way SA play the game at their best. Perhaps a little bit harsh. The Le Roux at 15 is a good player, again, but not quite top drawer. Don't think any of these players stand out as being significantly better than, say, Stander, Faletau or Vunipola; or Kearney, Liam Williams or Daly/Watson/Brown.

And that's the point - SA aren't bad at all but the NH has very good players as well. Same goes for Oz. Add in the fact that it would appear the NH has better coaching in some key aspects - using SH coaches, no doubt, although many have subsequently learnt and adapted in the NH, making it hard to really say that it is a simply NH v SH binary - and the fact that British/Irish sport tends to be played in a different way, with a different culture and mentality to the SANZAR countries, becomes less important. I have little doubt that, from my experience, the British attitude to sport and building pressure etc. is really poor. Both football or rugby - two sports I played growing up - were taught from the position of defence and structure and solidity first and foremost. Low error count, play it safe etc., wait/hope for mistakes from the opposition - and that is a key part of sport, but the SH teams are undoubtedly better at creating those mistakes (sometimes really minor at the top level) from creative, attacking play, rather than simply waiting and hoping for them as the NH approach tends to be. That is one fundamental aspect/issue with NH sport - and it's most apparent when coming up against teams like Fiji etc. But that's sport, isn't it? If you're not the best technically or creatively, you find ways of becoming more competitive, and to say the NH defences aren't ridiculously good is naive/missing a fundamental part of the game in order to make an ideological and partisan point.

Wales have successfully dragged SA and Oz into playing poorly through their defensive and even their attacking play. Playing the game at their tempo, controlling it etc. They've done it against every NH team as well - they won a Grand Slam doing it. Has it ever worked against NZ? No. They came close in 09 (I think it was 09 - the game AWJ nearly scored the intercept and Dan Carter decapitated Martin Roberts) but the closest they've ever come is by throwing the ball around and just going for it - in 03 and 04. But it's been enough to beat Oz and SA, as it has been enough to beat Ire and Eng. That's not bad going - and could easily be enough to win a RWC, as could Ire's tactics, and even Eng's hot/cold approach if they hit form against the bigger teams.

If everyone played sport the same way it would be boring.

Whadya mean England have the potential.

They have the potential to be a lot better than they are and have been for the last 15 years. Moreso than Wales and Ireland in the same period - as I said, they could consistently be the second best team in the world, which obviously they haven't come close to managing to nail down for any length of time (sort of tying into Taylor's point but not for the reasons he suggest - 'proper' winning runs etc :S ).

Yes get all that miaow and frankly I think I could put up far better arguments for NH rugby myself but as you say it doesnt fit my agenda which at its core is the survival of SH rugby. If the north were doing it all on their own merits Id welcome the usual banter but theyve found... and this is a general result of over a hundred years that they cant compete. Its only in the last two, since 2016, that theres been any sign of more than one side being competitive at the same time, and that just happens to coincide with both SA and oz unable to produce any players of genuine talent in years.

I tend to look at trends and why theyre happening the way they are. One trend is the rise in the average ranking of the NH sides. Not sure but it feels like its at an all time high.

For that theres one thing Id expect to see. An unusually higher number of very talented players coming through. Although there are a few... Ryan, Curry, stockdale etc I dont think there are as many as Id expect nor are any of those players extraordinary, once in a generation type players.

The players making the difference are still those who have been around for years... Sexton, murray, farrell, the V’s, AWJ, Liam Williams etc. and several more.

That and the usually strong front fives, some efficiency gains via the now prolongued efforts of mainly Schmidt, gats and Jones, who have worked out how to maximise rather than innovate NH resources.

What Im not seeing is creativity, new direction, innovation, star player power, and most of all genuine quality backplay, all things Id expect to see when some sort of shift as weve had occurs.

The reversion to type is especially annoying, how somehow strong defence, kicking for territory and an overbearing number of averagely skilled one ups is somehow ‘the new way to success’ when weve seen that for decades.

Unfortunately with fewer players of genuine talent coming through in the SH, including NZ, northern sides are filling the ranking void by default rather than through genuine improvement. By doing largely the same things, theyre getting better results.

For me I think we’ll get a correction of the trend at World cup timecsimply through better planning, focus, and location and timing of this years event. I believe the ability to get up in a crucial knockout match lies more in favour with all four SH sides if it came to a NH SH clash. Rarely do NH sides play above themselves at quarter and semi time, the absolute exception being france, and possibly Englands 07 effort. The rankings suggest this might change, we’ll see.

As I said, time will tell but if a NH side is going to win it I sure hope its done with some class rather than a fall over the line effort in all three knockouts. Finals can sometimes be close fought non eventful efforts between two very tired sides, but not always. But the wuarters and semis at least should bring out the very best quality of rugby the world has to offer. Hopefully thats the case again this time.

Taylorman, it used to be that we literally couldn’t win, now that we can it seems we still can’t. If an NH side does well in the RWC (which you don’t expect, but accept could happen) then they still need to do it in some style or it’s just meh? Seems like you’ve got all the bases covered.

While I appreciate your concerns surely it’s a case of the SH unions (Aus and SA especially) getting their houses in order and World Rugby sorting out residency? This idea that the NH is only being relatively dominant in world standards due to the downfall of others is a bit disingenuous. Ireland, England Wales are at least on a par with everybody except NZ with current results. This has been the case for the last 3 years or so.

The RWC will be interesting, but I’d be very surprised if it panned out like last time come the semi-finals.

Don’t forget NZ sorted out their RWC malaise by ‘limping over the line’ vs France in 2011.

Taylor, you mention tight 5 as a strength but, yet again, it's just reeling off a script. For Ireland, it's true, and Wales have a good scrum (but dodgy lineout), and England in many ways rely on a dominant front 5 (although their front rows a bit average in the tight). In reality, their tight 5 is no more a point of difference than any other area v the SH teams.

But you could quite legitimately make a case that the Scottish backline, when fully fit, is second only to the ABs. Certainly pushed them close when they played NZ in Murrayfield - if they had a good tight 5 they'd win a lot more games!

England’s improvement after a poor year is less to do with the tight five and more related to finally getting a balanced back row. Under Eddie they never have problems scoring tries. Defensively, on occasions, and in decision making (and finishing games off) has been a problem. The idea that it’s just defence and route one where they succeed is a bit laughable to be honest.

Cyril wrote:Taylorman, it used to be that we literally couldn’t win, now that we can it seems we still can’t. If an NH side does well in the RWC (which you don’t expect, but accept could happen) then they still need to do it in some style or it’s just meh? Seems like you’ve got all the bases covered.

While I appreciate your concerns surely it’s a case of the SH unions (Aus and SA especially) getting their houses in order and  World Rugby sorting out residency? This idea that the NH is only being relatively dominant in world standards due to the downfall of others is a bit disingenuous. Ireland, England Wales are at least on a par with everybody except NZ with current results. This has been the case for the last 3 years or so.

The RWC will be interesting, but I’d be very surprised if it panned out like last time come the semi-finals.

Don’t forget NZ sorted out their RWC malaise by ‘limping over the line’ vs France in 2011.

Yes they did, the home pressure on the side was incredible, and explains the malaise that most sides go through when hosting it, England completely disintegrated I believe due largely to the local fan and media pressure and expectation in 2015. Its difficult to win at home in this tournament. But NZ didnt lack in the other knockouts and for most NH sides those are the ones theyre losing particularly wales and ireland.

miaow wrote:Taylor, you mention tight 5 as a strength but, yet again, it's just reeling off a script. For Ireland, it's true, and Wales have a good scrum (but dodgy lineout), and England in many ways rely on a dominant front 5 (although their front rows a bit average in the tight). In reality, their tight 5 is no more a point of difference than any other area v the SH teams.

But you could quite legitimately make a case that the Scottish backline, when fully fit, is second only to the ABs. Certainly pushed them close when they played NZ in Murrayfield - if they had a good tight 5 they'd win a lot more games!

Tight five comment is usually in reference to England, who are the only home unions side with Wcup success. sometimes France, and lately Ireland. Its also the reason Wales wont get there I agree. Scottish backs are good, but so are fijis and samoas, but not a lot of use if youre not competing up front, with the best.

In saying that happy to be proved wrong this year. Mind you, at least I seem to have more confidence that Nigel Melville about England, who seems to be concerned about being relegated behind teams like Georgia if the new league goes ahead, as amusing as it is unlikely. Not the most positive bloke during a World cup year I'm sure.

Taylor, lets just hope that the NZ brand survives into the the next few years. It could be a Harlem Globetrotters future for you lot if you can’t support one sport in your country. That would be sad. I think you need to get a big buyer behind you like Google (forget the history) and just tour on the back of sponsors. Either that or get your fans in the stadia (build some big ones with your own money) and really give it a go.

Or World Rugby could try and bail you out (again).

Cyril wrote:Taylor, lets just hope that the NZ brand survives into the the next few years. It could be a Harlem Globetrotters future for you lot if you can’t support one sport in your country. That would be sad. I think you need to get a big buyer behind you like Google (forget the history) and just tour on the back of sponsors. Either that or get your fans in the stadia (build some big ones with your own money) and really give it a go.

Or World Rugby could try and bail you out (again).

Oh rugby would be in a state not worth watching if the brand doesn't survive, everyone tripping over each other at the lowered ceiling, kinda like those zombie movies.

I’m sure we would all do ok without the previous kiwis. Bless their snowflake hearts.

Please check with the Aussies before you reply. And they will check with us. Ta.

Cyril wrote:I’m sure we would all do ok without the previous kiwis. Bless their snowflake hearts.

'do ok'...yes I agree, mediocrity would flourish.

I just hope we see a bit of pizazz in Japan, some Adam West BOOOM!, KAPOW!!

Taylorman wrote:Wasnt what you asked, did I see close to a WC winning side in the RC. I answered yes.

Looking at the Bok losses theyre not that bad and for me as players depart in ever increasing numbers the SH test sides simply have to prioritise.

I think that means more losses at AI time and 'the odd' loss in the southern tours, the north still generally well behind there.

SA beat NZ and lead something like 30-17 with less than ten to play in SA. And this is IN season, when both NZ AND SA should be at peak.

Last time SA beat Ireland? Last 2 from 3 of course, a stat often selected by Irish fans over NZ. Number of times Ireland have won away vs SA? One from 10.

is the Japan event away from Ireland? Yes
Did Ireland perform well in season? (6N time). No.

Enough there to suggest SA will more than compete with Ireland, particularly with the timing and location.

Lol, backward hick logic.

The only way other nations can hope to compete with NZ is to adopt their model. In NZ sport only one thing matters - producing All Blacks. Their whole system is constructed in order to achieve that aim. No deviation is allowed or tolerated. Other countries' rugby unions cannot, even if they wanted to, adopt this system because of the structure of their leagues, the owners and shareholders of the clubs/regions demanding short term success over forward thinking,planning and development and the almost total lack of co-operation between clubs (just one example being a club demanding a player turns out for them even if it means he misses training with his national squad)

Taylorman wrote:
Tight five comment is usually in reference to England...

So what are you talking about? NH rugby or England? Because the sweeping statements are leading you to have to contradict yourself...

Oh come on miaow its common knowledge that any success out of the home unions in World cup does not involve open play and the scoring of tries. Thats not going to change this year.

That is reserved for Oz, NZ and France over the entirety of the tournament since its inception. SA and England successes were all based on useful packs and a boot to keep them going forward and ticking the points over.

Ireland Scotland, Argie, Samoa and Wales have had 15 man approaches but it hasnt been good enough to progress to finals day. Wales and SA may buck that trend but the Wales that won the 6N wont be good enough to win the World cup. they need to be much better than that.

SA are being forced to play to their quota strengths so must open their game up more, though Erasmus did a good job with his pack in selected matches last year.

England have the side but Jones looks like he sends them out with a 20 page instruction book that they must follow to the letter. Ireland have proven to be inflexible when things are going for them so like 2015 cant afford to fall behind. Its very difficult to boss your way back into a match.

Interesting stat in that in all world cups the only knockout matches the four home unions have won vs the RC four are the three england had over england. The other 19 were all lost. Quite a stat and one that should be improved by this years tournament if the rankings are reflected correctly.

Cyril wrote:Taylor, lets just hope that the NZ brand survives into the the next few years. It could be a Harlem Globetrotters future for you lot if you can’t support one sport in your country. That would be sad. I think you need to get a big buyer behind you like Google (forget the history) and just tour on the back of sponsors. Either that or get your fans in the stadia (build some big ones with your own money) and really give it a go.

Or World Rugby could try and bail you out (again).

WR bail out NZR? When was that? Seems like the RFU is in some strife with its stadium.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12217745

Is this really a story in NZ? Roof which requires replacement every 25 years or so requires replacing after 28.

Taken from the Daily Telegraph. They were just highlighting the RFU is feeling the pinch and it’s affecting their plans for grass roots rugby development.

So planned expense and spending to means. Shock.

Trying to cobble together a British 7s rugby team to save money is pretty shocking you’d have to admit

I don't watch 7s.

ebop wrote:Trying to cobble together a British 7s rugby team to save money is pretty shocking you’d have to admit

Wouldn’t that be for Olympic reasons rather than anything else