Wales International: games, squads, tournaments, chat - 2021/22

First topic message reminder :

A place to chat about everything ‘Wales’ going forward.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

First up: South Africa 6th November 2021

Wales: Johnny McNicholl; Louis Rees-Zammit, Jonathan Davies (capt), Nick Tompkins, Josh Adams; Dan Biggar, Tomos Williams; Rhys Carre, Ryan Elias, Tomas Francis, Will Rowlands, Adam Beard, Ellis Jenkins, Taine Basham, Aaron Wainwright.

Replacements: Bradley Roberts, Wyn Jones, WillGriff John, Ben Carter, Seb Davies, Gareth Davies, Gareth Anscombe, Liam Williams.

South Africa: Damian Willemse; Jesse Kriel, Lukhanyo Am, Damian de Allende, Makazole Mapimpi; Handre Pollard, Herschel Jantjies; Ox Nche, Bongi Mbonambi, Trevor Nyakane, Eben Etzebeth, Lood De Jager, Siya Kolisi (capt), Kwagga Smith, Duane Vermeulen.

Replacements: Malcolm Marx, Steven Kitshoff, Vincent Koch, Franco Mostert, Jasper Wiese, Cobus Reinach, Elton Jantjies, Frans Steyn.

Can’t believe how many rugby accounts etc think it’s brilliant, as well as praising that idiot Jarvo. It’s so idiotic.

Once again Rees Zammit was very poor. He has been woeful all year for Glaws. He has talent but his unwillingness to do the boring things like tackle or commit to a high ball make him a liability.

Interesting analysis by Nick Mallett and Swys de Bruin on the match.

Analysing Mapimpi's try they looked at the positioning of the players as the box kixk took place.

Etzebeth who was called as offside was actually not part of the ruck and behind the kick from the start.

Koch, Kitshoff, Mapimpi and one other were at the ruck as the ball was kicked. Am pulled back the forwards to show them not to advance.

So Etzebeth came from a legal position to collect the ball, according to them, and listening to their reasoning that try was as legitimate as the come.

There were two line out mauls whereby Etzebeth was taken whilst still in the air that wasn't blown, and another, similar to the one where the Welsh prop (can't remember his name) pulled the leg and pulled down the maul and subsequently got carded, and the next time nothing happened.

Those were the contentious issues they discussed.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Well that guy who was saying Pivac should keep his job based on the 6 nations looks a bit silly right now. Another disaster autumn for Wales, another loss for Pivac - his record is absolutely awful. #PivacOut

Jeez...is Pivac this universally disliked?  

You've just won the 6N and pushed the world champions right till the end. What more do you want????

No, he’s not universally disliked. There is the feeling that he hasn’t yet quite proved himself for some fans however. I think, despite the issues that impacted the forwards, that yesterday had more positives than negatives. The lineout impressed me after last week’s shambles, but we couldn’t compete with SA’s power off the bench.

Ultimately Pivac will have at least to the end of this World Cup cycle to create the team he wants, but with the likes of Owens, AWJ, Tipuric, Faletau and JD2 reaching the twilight of his career, it’s a hell of an ask. It may be that the next coach reaps the benefit of the work he does now in bringing through younger players.

Mikey, I would ask that you refrain from using that hashtag though, it’s crass and serves no purpose.

Old Man wrote:Interesting analysis by Nick Mallett and Swys de Bruin on the match.

Analysing Mapimpi's try they looked at the positioning of the players as the box kixk took place.

Etzebeth who was called as offside was actually not part of the ruck and behind the kick from the start.

Koch, Kitshoff, Mapimpi and one other were at the ruck as the ball was kicked. Am pulled back the forwards to show them not to advance.

So Etzebeth came from a legal position to collect the ball, according to them, and listening to their reasoning that try was as legitimate as the come.

There were two line out mauls whereby Etzebeth was taken whilst still in the air that wasn't blown, and another, similar to the one where the Welsh prop (can't remember his name) pulled the leg and pulled down the maul and subsequently got carded, and the next time nothing happened.

Those were the contentious issues they discussed.

Sounds like they only discussed one side of it.  Not surprising.

The Oracle wrote:

Old Man wrote:Interesting analysis by Nick Mallett and Swys de Bruin on the match.

Analysing Mapimpi's try they looked at the positioning of the players as the box kixk took place.

Etzebeth who was called as offside was actually not part of the ruck and behind the kick from the start.

Koch, Kitshoff, Mapimpi and one other were at the ruck as the ball was kicked. Am pulled back the forwards to show them not to advance.

So Etzebeth came from a legal position to collect the ball, according to them, and listening to their reasoning that try was as legitimate as the come.

There were two line out mauls whereby Etzebeth was taken whilst still in the air that wasn't blown, and another, similar to the one where the Welsh prop (can't remember his name) pulled the leg and pulled down the maul and subsequently got carded, and the next time nothing happened.

Those were the contentious issues they discussed.

Sounds like they only discussed one side of it.  Not surprising.

Of course they are going to look at their side, doesn't mean they are wrong though. They showed indepth video analysis and explained why.

Exiledinborders wrote:Once again Rees Zammit was very poor. He has been woeful all year for Glaws. He has talent but his unwillingness to do the boring things like tackle or commit to a high ball make him a liability.

I dunno about very poor.  He didn’t really make any/many mistakes from my memory.  Just didn’t really get much chance to get into the game.  Wales created virtually zero so that’s not surprising. Pretty much everything for Wales was in the middle of the pitch and didn’t get much wider.  Yes, Adams was involved more from his wing but there was a clear plan to use him on the crash ball (which was not that fruitful but did make some yards).  Not sure we had the same plans for Rees Zammit though.  He did miss a high ball cross field kick, but that was really difficult to take.  Really stretching and extremely wet from the downpour.  What others mistakes were there?  If it’s just lack of involvement then I didn’t see much (in attack) from JD2 or Tompkins either.  Biggar kicked up ‘n unders most of the afternoon!

Old Man wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Old Man wrote:Interesting analysis by Nick Mallett and Swys de Bruin on the match.

Analysing Mapimpi's try they looked at the positioning of the players as the box kixk took place.

Etzebeth who was called as offside was actually not part of the ruck and behind the kick from the start.

Koch, Kitshoff, Mapimpi and one other were at the ruck as the ball was kicked. Am pulled back the forwards to show them not to advance.

So Etzebeth came from a legal position to collect the ball, according to them, and listening to their reasoning that try was as legitimate as the come.

There were two line out mauls whereby Etzebeth was taken whilst still in the air that wasn't blown, and another, similar to the one where the Welsh prop (can't remember his name) pulled the leg and pulled down the maul and subsequently got carded, and the next time nothing happened.

Those were the contentious issues they discussed.

Sounds like they only discussed one side of it.  Not surprising.

Of course they are going to look at their side, doesn't mean they are wrong though. They showed indepth video analysis and explained why.

Perhaps I misread your post.  I felt like you were saying those were the contentious issues, period.  I’m sure there were some the other way too.  But if you meant just the ones against SA then yes OK 

No worries Oracle.

Will Rowlands - 19 tackles (1st) 9 carries (2nd)
Taine Basham - 13 tackles (2nd) 10 carries (1st)
Aaron Wainwright - 3 turnovers won (1st)

Yet I only heard the commentary team go on and on about Ellis Jenkins. We really can’t buy any credit can we

Old Man wrote:Interesting analysis by Nick Mallett and Swys de Bruin on the match.

Analysing Mapimpi's try they looked at the positioning of the players as the box kixk took place.

Etzebeth who was called as offside was actually not part of the ruck and behind the kick from the start.

Koch, Kitshoff, Mapimpi and one other were at the ruck as the ball was kicked. Am pulled back the forwards to show them not to advance.

So Etzebeth came from a legal position to collect the ball, according to them, and listening to their reasoning that try was as legitimate as the come.

There were two line out mauls whereby Etzebeth was taken whilst still in the air that wasn't blown, and another, similar to the one where the Welsh prop (can't remember his name) pulled the leg and pulled down the maul and subsequently got carded, and the next time nothing happened.

Those were the contentious issues they discussed.

Some players move backwards but no 19 who is in front of the kick moves directly forward.

Yeah, is it Koch? Moves forward before then retreating. Laws say its offside.

If a referee is unsure of whether a player is or was offside or did not retreat then he needs to ask himself whether it had any influence on the outcome.

There was none.

Try should be awarded.

Not me only saying that, many pundits are saying that.

But we can argue this point in circles, I brought it up as the analysis was done, feel free to disagree.

Old Man wrote:If a referee is unsure of whether a player is or was offside or did not retreat then he needs to ask himself whether it had any influence on the outcome.

There was none.

Try should be awarded.

Not me only saying that, many pundits are saying that.

But we can argue this point in circles, I brought it up as the analysis was done, feel free to disagree.

He could ask himself however that would be incorrect to do so. It is offside technically. And we all love a technical penalty.

Old Man wrote:If a referee is unsure of whether a player is or was offside or did not retreat then he needs to ask himself whether it had any influence on the outcome.

There was none.

Try should be awarded.

Not me only saying that, many pundits are saying that.

But we can argue this point in circles, I brought it up as the analysis was done, feel free to disagree.

That's not what the laws state so he made the correct decision, there's also the fact green 19 directly interferes with red 4.

Look at green 19, tell me what he does wrong?

You mean aside from the blocking and not retreating?

Old Man wrote:

Look at green 19, tell me what he does wrong?

He advances.

he is entitled to advance, he was put on side and was more than ten meters away from where the ball landed

Old Man wrote:he is entitled to advance, he was put on side and was more than ten meters away from where the ball landed

No he's not entitled to advance at all.

'An offside player may be penalised, if that player:

Interferes with play; or

Moves forwards towards the ball; or
Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down'

No I get your point that you do see refs sometimes warn players and sometimes ignore things for flow but when a try is scored you're more likely to see them stick to the laws. SA weren't complaining when Curry got pinged for not retreating I'm the lions series.

SA fans, coaches and pundits really do continue to cover themselves in glory eh . Always arrogantly whinging about something.

You need not generalise, mikey, just accuse me directly.

I can generalise that Welsh supporters complain about refereeing decisions all the time, just like everyone else does. But that would be incorrect.

As for the whinging, I commented on what the SA pundits in studio discussed.

What they analysed and showed. So what you are saying is South Africans aren't permitted to comment because they are merely whingers and are not justified to have an opinion?

I don't mind journalists in particular from dissecting decisions plays or whatever but you've got to be honest and impartial for me. Similarly the analysis of the Scotland match at half time (didn't watch at full time) and the co commentators was biased. For me it does nothing for the casual viewers who may be taking that analysis as gospel.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:he is entitled to advance, he was put on side and was more than ten meters away from where the ball landed

No he's not entitled to advance at all.

'An offside player may be penalised, if that player:

Interferes with play; or

Moves forwards towards the ball; or
Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down'

No I get your point that you do see refs sometimes warn players and sometimes ignore things for flow but when a try is scored you're more likely to see them stick to the laws. SA weren't complaining when Curry got pinged for not retreating I'm the lions series.

Mostert was pushed back by the Welsh number four, besides that he wasn't in the ten meter radius, by the time he did move forward he was put on side already, he also had no impact on the play. The only forward impacting play was Etzebeth who was behind the kick from the start.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't mind journalists in particular from dissecting decisions plays or whatever but you've got to be honest and impartial for me. Similarly the analysis of the Scotland match at half time (didn't watch at full time) and the co commentators was biased. For me it does nothing for the casual viewers who may be taking that analysis as gospel.

Neither do I, and if they analyse an incident and show their reasoning, then if one doesn't agree, show the reason why, too many people get defensive and then start throwing "feelings" around which entails generalised rubbish comments that brings nothing to the debate.

Old Man wrote:You need not generalise, mikey, just accuse me directly.

I can generalise that Welsh supporters complain about refereeing decisions all the time, just like everyone else does. But that would be incorrect.

As for the whinging, I commented on what the SA pundits in studio discussed.

What they analysed and showed. So what you are saying is South Africans aren't permitted to comment because they are merely whingers and are not justified to have an opinion?

I actually think you're very reasonable, especaially in comparison to your fellow Boers. Ever since the Lions tour it's been arrogant whingeing about the Ref etc, no grace in victory or defeat what so ever. It seems quite widespread as it was literally everywhere I turned, lead by good old Rassie who seems to have gotten off scott free. I'm saying South Africans should reel it in a bit.

Yes we Welsh certainly do complain a lot, but then again everyone up here is against us .

Perhaps it would be better not to bring any South African perspective to the debate. Because win or lose everything is seen as a whinge from those arrogant South Africans, eh?

Always whining, always wrong just about sums it up then.

Old Man wrote:Perhaps it would be better not to bring any South African perspective to the debate. Because win or lose everything is seen as a whinge from those arrogant South Africans, eh?

Always whining, always wrong just about sums it up then.

That's really how it is coming across, unfortunately.

The ones I do know aren't like this though.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:he is entitled to advance, he was put on side and was more than ten meters away from where the ball landed

No he's not entitled to advance at all.

'An offside player may be penalised, if that player:

Interferes with play; or

Moves forwards towards the ball; or
Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down'

No I get your point that you do see refs sometimes warn players and sometimes ignore things for flow but when a try is scored you're more likely to see them stick to the laws. SA weren't complaining when Curry got pinged for not retreating I'm the lions series.

Mostert was pushed back by the Welsh number four, besides that he wasn't in the ten meter radius, by the time he did move forward he was put on side already, he also had no impact on the play. The only forward impacting play was Etzebeth who was behind the kick from the start.

He's in an offside position and blocks the Welsh number 4, that in itself is a penalty.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:he is entitled to advance, he was put on side and was more than ten meters away from where the ball landed

No he's not entitled to advance at all.

'An offside player may be penalised, if that player:

Interferes with play; or

Moves forwards towards the ball; or
Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down'

No I get your point that you do see refs sometimes warn players and sometimes ignore things for flow but when a try is scored you're more likely to see them stick to the laws. SA weren't complaining when Curry got pinged for not retreating I'm the lions series.

Mostert was pushed back by the Welsh number four, besides that he wasn't in the ten meter radius, by the time he did move forward he was put on side already, he also had no impact on the play. The only forward impacting play was Etzebeth who was behind the kick from the start.

He's in an offside position and blocks the Welsh number 4, that in itself is a penalty.

If you think that then you haven't been watching box kicks over the past 100 years. Mostert wasn't blocking anyone, he was behind the last feet of the SA side of the ruck and not blocking access to the kick as he was stationary aside the kicker.

He was behind the the last foot but the offside line then changes once the ball is out and whilst being in an offside position he firstly blocks and then advances rather retiring behind the offside line. There's also Marx who takes four steps forwards before retiring, it's a technical penalty that probably had no impact on the play but by the referee was correct with his decision.

Yup. Similarly Curry didn't interfere with play against SA in the lions tour but its a technical penalty and correct.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup. Similarly Curry didn't interfere with play against SA in the lions tour but its a technical penalty and correct.

I cannot recall the Curry incident, can you remind me?

Deep kick towards coffin corner. Someone arrived tackled the SA player and then a turnover pen from memory overturned as Curry was offside and advancing. Want to say it was the 2nd test. Its a pen whether you think he interfered or not. Sometimes you get lucky and the ref will tell you to stop sometimes not. Generally when it ends up in an advantage of the team kicking it will be called back.

Ken Owens has been released from this squad after not recovering from his back injury. Now we get to see more of Pivac's favourite at 2...

mikey_dragon wrote:Ken Owens has been released from this squad after not recovering from his back injury. Now we get to see more of Pivac's favourite at 2...

The lineout was massively improved at the weekend. 14/15 won, hopefully more of the same over the next two weeks.

chris_501 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ken Owens has been released from this squad after not recovering from his back injury. Now we get to see more of Pivac's favourite at 2...

The lineout was massively improved at the weekend. 14/15 won, hopefully more of the same over the next two weeks.

Yes you'd hope so. I don't want to have to come back here afterwards and keep saying Pivac out.

I was impressed with the lineout too. Especially against the Boks who are renowned as lineout specialists and always have monsters at lock who are adept at picking off opposition lineouts. Not sure what changed but they did say they were working hard on putting it right after the ABs game. So a lot of focus there in training perhaps.

Next: focus on the scrum.......

Seriously though, I don't know whether it was just that we were up against probably the best scrummaging team in the world (arguably) or that our scrum is just mince. Probably a bit of both. Saying that, I remember going into the last 6N we were all really worried about how poor our scrum was and then it held up just fine and was even on top in a few games so who knows. But against the Boks it was an achilles heel that really hampered us. I'll go as far as to say I think it was the reason we lost A number of times we were up on the score board and were deep in their half only to give away scrum penalties, which they kicked deep into our half and we were then defending our own line for the lineout. Can't remember if they kicked any 3 pointers from scrum penalties? Probably. Maybe the Steyn monster penalty? And in a tight game like that it made the the real difference and gifted them points. Need to work out a way to at least get parity.

The Oracle wrote:I was impressed with the lineout too.  Especially against the Boks who are renowned as lineout specialists and always have monsters at lock who are adept at picking off opposition lineouts.  Not sure what changed but they did say they were working hard on putting it right after the ABs game.  So a lot of focus there in training perhaps.    

Next: focus on the scrum.......

Seriously though, I don't know whether it was just that we were up against probably the best scrummaging team in the world (arguably) or that our scrum is just mince.  Probably a bit of both.  Saying that, I remember going into the last 6N we were all really worried about how poor our scrum was and then it held up just fine and was even on top in a few games so who knows.  But against the Boks it was an achilles heel that really hampered us.  I'll go as far as to say I think it was the reason we lost A number of times we were up on the score board and were deep in their half only to give away scrum penalties, which they kicked deep into our half and we were then defending our own line for the lineout.  Can't remember if they kicked any 3 pointers from scrum penalties?  Probably.  Maybe the Steyn monster penalty?  And in a tight game like that it made the the real difference and gifted them points.  Need to work out a way to at least get parity.

Did you read Alex Corbisiero's view on this?

I thought it wasn’t the best of choice to try and get Ken Owens fit for the Australian game, so hopefully he can recover properly now.

PhilBB wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I was impressed with the lineout too.  Especially against the Boks who are renowned as lineout specialists and always have monsters at lock who are adept at picking off opposition lineouts.  Not sure what changed but they did say they were working hard on putting it right after the ABs game.  So a lot of focus there in training perhaps.    

Next: focus on the scrum.......

Seriously though, I don't know whether it was just that we were up against probably the best scrummaging team in the world (arguably) or that our scrum is just mince.  Probably a bit of both.  Saying that, I remember going into the last 6N we were all really worried about how poor our scrum was and then it held up just fine and was even on top in a few games so who knows.  But against the Boks it was an achilles heel that really hampered us.  I'll go as far as to say I think it was the reason we lost A number of times we were up on the score board and were deep in their half only to give away scrum penalties, which they kicked deep into our half and we were then defending our own line for the lineout.  Can't remember if they kicked any 3 pointers from scrum penalties?  Probably.  Maybe the Steyn monster penalty?  And in a tight game like that it made the the real difference and gifted them points.  Need to work out a way to at least get parity.

Did you read Alex Corbisiero's view on this?

No

There is always something to work on for coaches. Wales line out showd marked improvement over the previous week. Yes their scrum needs work this week, next week it will be something else.

The Springboks need to work on their discipline at the breakdown/tackle area and they need to work on their finishing and execution.

During the second half they created pressure for extended periods and came away with little reward.

The Oracle wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I was impressed with the lineout too.  Especially against the Boks who are renowned as lineout specialists and always have monsters at lock who are adept at picking off opposition lineouts.  Not sure what changed but they did say they were working hard on putting it right after the ABs game.  So a lot of focus there in training perhaps.    

Next: focus on the scrum.......

Seriously though, I don't know whether it was just that we were up against probably the best scrummaging team in the world (arguably) or that our scrum is just mince.  Probably a bit of both.  Saying that, I remember going into the last 6N we were all really worried about how poor our scrum was and then it held up just fine and was even on top in a few games so who knows.  But against the Boks it was an achilles heel that really hampered us.  I'll go as far as to say I think it was the reason we lost A number of times we were up on the score board and were deep in their half only to give away scrum penalties, which they kicked deep into our half and we were then defending our own line for the lineout.  Can't remember if they kicked any 3 pointers from scrum penalties?  Probably.  Maybe the Steyn monster penalty?  And in a tight game like that it made the the real difference and gifted them points.  Need to work out a way to at least get parity.

Did you read Alex Corbisiero's view on this?

No

https://twitter.com/AlexCorbs/status/1457064188245946381?s=20

"Wales’s new back 5 scrum set up/system is killing them today. Watch how far about their locks are from each other and how far the 8’s head goes into the scrum. They tweaked their number 8’s role on set up from last season."

In other words, all down to coaching.

Old Man wrote:There is always something to work on for coaches. Wales line out showd marked improvement over the previous week. Yes their scrum needs work this week, next week it will be something else.

The Springboks need to work on their discipline at the breakdown/tackle area and they need to work on their finishing and execution.

During the second half they created pressure for extended periods and came away with little reward.

The Kiwi took 78 minutes to penalise them for sealing off, something they'd done since the kick off. It's funny how the ref was only interested in the defender supporting his weight, but never the attacking team.

PhilBB wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I was impressed with the lineout too.  Especially against the Boks who are renowned as lineout specialists and always have monsters at lock who are adept at picking off opposition lineouts.  Not sure what changed but they did say they were working hard on putting it right after the ABs game.  So a lot of focus there in training perhaps.    

Next: focus on the scrum.......

Seriously though, I don't know whether it was just that we were up against probably the best scrummaging team in the world (arguably) or that our scrum is just mince.  Probably a bit of both.  Saying that, I remember going into the last 6N we were all really worried about how poor our scrum was and then it held up just fine and was even on top in a few games so who knows.  But against the Boks it was an achilles heel that really hampered us.  I'll go as far as to say I think it was the reason we lost A number of times we were up on the score board and were deep in their half only to give away scrum penalties, which they kicked deep into our half and we were then defending our own line for the lineout.  Can't remember if they kicked any 3 pointers from scrum penalties?  Probably.  Maybe the Steyn monster penalty?  And in a tight game like that it made the the real difference and gifted them points.  Need to work out a way to at least get parity.

Did you read Alex Corbisiero's view on this?

No

https://twitter.com/AlexCorbs/status/1457064188245946381?s=20

"Wales’s new  back 5 scrum set up/system is killing them today. Watch how far about their locks are from each other and how far the 8’s head goes into the scrum. They tweaked their number 8’s role on set up from last season."

In other words, all down to coaching.

Jonathan Humphries then?

mikey_dragon wrote:

Jonathan Humphries then?

Definitely Jonathan Humphreys.

I still don't get why he was appointed. I didn't think his track record priorn was good and that was with one of the finest club teams ever put out. Ospreys foward play improved a lot when Chris Gibbes came in. Even the Scots didn't have much positive to say about Humph. Pivac assembled this team (remember Hayward?) and should be held accountable too.

mikey_dragon wrote:I still don't get why he was appointed. I didn't think his track record priorn was good and that was with one of the finest club teams ever put out. Ospreys foward play improved a lot when Chris Gibbes came in. Even the Scots didn't have much positive to say about Humph. Pivac assembled this team (remember Hayward?) and should be held accountable too.

Ask Adam Jones

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/adam-jones-reveals-unbelievable-welsh-13095267

PhilBB wrote:

Old Man wrote:There is always something to work on for coaches. Wales line out showd marked improvement over the previous week. Yes their scrum needs work this week, next week it will be something else.

The Springboks need to work on their discipline at the breakdown/tackle area and they need to work on their finishing and execution.

During the second half they created pressure for extended periods and came away with little reward.

The Kiwi took 78 minutes to penalise them for sealing off, something they'd done since the kick off. It's funny how the ref was only interested in the defender supporting his weight, but never the attacking team.

The Boks conceded more penalties at the ruck in defence than the Welsh.

Old Man wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Old Man wrote:There is always something to work on for coaches. Wales line out showd marked improvement over the previous week. Yes their scrum needs work this week, next week it will be something else.

The Springboks need to work on their discipline at the breakdown/tackle area and they need to work on their finishing and execution.

During the second half they created pressure for extended periods and came away with little reward.

The Kiwi took 78 minutes to penalise them for sealing off, something they'd done since the kick off. It's funny how the ref was only interested in the defender supporting his weight, but never the attacking team.

The Boks conceded more penalties at the ruck in defence than the Welsh.

Yes, but only one in attack when it should have bene multiples more.