England vs Wales - Match ups.

First topic message reminder :

The Back Three

Wales Likely - North - Halfpenny - Cuthbert.

England Likely: Ashton - Foden - Strettle

England's back three contains more pace, whilst Foden on his day can be electric, although was poor against Italy and Brown will feel unlucky to miss out, Ashton has looked out of sorts on the left wing, whilst Strettle has been solid if not spectacular. The Welsh wings will prove a real handful for England and they need to find a way to negate them. North is world class in attack - he has it all, pace, power and vision, however his defensive work-rate may need work on, whilst Cuthbert is also fast and powerful. Halfpenny has been goal kicking well, he's looked mostly solid under the high ball and there is no doubt he has gas and is creative in attack. Therefore I'd have to say that Wales have the edge here.

Centres

Wales Likely: Roberts - Davies

England Likely: Barritt - Tuilagi/Farrell - Tuilagi

The Welsh centre partnership is extremely potent and many have labelled both Davies and Roberts as a future Lions centre pairing. Davies is in the form of his life, both players have a physical presence and are strong ball carriers, both have a high defensive work-rate and both are surprisingly fast. England on the other hand must pick Tuilagi as he has the x-factor and could potentially damage Wales (both in attack and defence!) the problem is, who to play him with. If England pick Barritt at 12 they have a rock wall defensively and a player who will aim to get you across the gainline in a one dimensional manner. If England pick Farrell at 12, they can rely on his composed goal kicking, and in attack he may offer more creativity than Barritt although hasn't really had the chance to show this against Scotland and Italy, there will also be question marks surrounding whether his defence will be able to cope with the likes of North, Roberts and Davies running at him. Therefore I would pick Barritt and Tuilagi in the centres, I feel the could combine well together and would be rock solid defensively. Wales have the edge here by a clear margin.

Half Backs

Wales Likely: Phillips - Priestland

England Likely: Dickson - Hodgson/Youngs - Flood/Dickson - Flood

Both Welsh half backs are extremely dangerous, in defence Phillips acts as an extra flanker, whilst in attack he can ball carry effectively and provide good service. Priestland attacks the gainline, has a very strong kicking game and is solid in defence. England have a tough choice to make regarding scrum half - Youngs has been out of sorts, whilst Dickson has looked lively when he has come on and is buzzing for a start. Arguably the most important decision England need to make is at fly half, between Flood and Hodgson. Hodgson hasn't done anything wrong, he defended very well against Scotland and Italy, he didn't have the burden of goal kicking, whilst he has scored two opportunist charge down tries in two games, although he has struggled to ignite the England backline. I'd go with Flood, simply as Flood is an established international goal kicker - which means England can have Barritt and Tuilagi in the centres, whilst Flood also has the ability to get the backline moving and he can bring the best out of Ben Youngs and Manu Tuilagi. Tough call on Hodgson though. Wales again have the edge at half back.

Back Row

Wales Likely: Warburton (c) - Faletau - Lydiate

England Likely: Robshaw (c) - Morgan - Croft

Wales have potentially the best back row in world rugby. Lydiate is a traditional blindside who carries hard, has a huge defensive work-rate and does the grafting. Faletau has an even higher defensive work-rate than Lydiate which really says something, and he is a huge ball carrier, at 21 his potential is ridiculous. Warburton is also a fantastic player already, he is fast, powerful and can compete with the best in the world at turning the ball over at the breakdown. England in the back row are a work in progress, Robshaw playing at 7 is a traditional blindside - his work-rate is phenominal, however he lacks the scavenging skills and pace of an openside. Croft is an unorthodox blindside, who tends to go missing in games, however on his day he can be very effective, and his lineout skills are unquestioned. Morgan is a direct, powerful number 8 with a good defensive work-rate and deserves a chance to start. Again Wales have the edge here.

Second Row

Wales Likely: Evans - Jones

England Likely: Botha - Palmer

Evans is a solid lock, who tackles hard and carries well in the tight, whilst Jones looks a reborn player in the second row at the minute and really acts as an extra flanker around the pitch. England will look to gain the upper hand in the lineout with Palmer calling the shots and Croft able to help out, whilst Botha will look to make his physical presence felt around the park. The engine room of England's scrum may also be more effective than the Welsh with Botha a particularly strong scrummager. Therefore I feel England have the edge here.

Front Row

Wales Likely: Jenkins - Bennett - Jones

England Likely: Corbisiero - Hartley - Cole

There is no doubt on his day Jenkins is the best loosehead prop in the world especially around the park with his ball carrying, defence and handling particularly impressive. Jones is a powerful tighthead and Bennett may need to work on his consistency in the lineout, where England will target him. England's front row is also a work in progress - Corbisiero, Hartley and Cole have all scrummaged well against the Scots and Italians. Hartley has been very effective in the loose, his lineout has mostly been impressive, whilst Corbisiero and Cole will want to make more of an impression around the park. Even call in this department.

Conclusion

Wales have the upper hand in most departments, however England will look to dominate in the set-piece and if the right selections are made I can see England potentially pulling off an upset. (Funny to say that about a home game at Twickenham) Maybe I am just living in hope.

Robshaw's Barmy Army.

Why should Hibbard leapfrog Ken Owens?

I'm not saying he should , just think he probably will.

I hope he doesn't. I don't have anything against Hibbard, but Ken Owens has done nothing to deserve being leapfrogged. It would be such a kick in the teeth if someone else comes from outside the squad straight into the starting XV ahead of him.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Match fitness, perhaps, but match sharpness? You can't trick yourself into thinking you're playing in a match when you're actually training.

Yep i agree with you but in the training you do get some indication.

Its the same with form to be honest, training witll give you an indication but wont tell you if a player is in true form.

Look at D'Arcy, he would have to be the best trainer in the world to get constantly selected

I just thought it was a strange thing for Lancaster to say. It suggests he'll give more weight to, say, Toby Flood's performance in training than to his performance for Leicester against Saracens on the weekend. Surely nothing he does in training could give a better indication of match sharpness than his recent performance in an actual match?

I agree, it makes little sense - match fit is not the same as being match sharp.

The first implies you are physically fit enough to play a match, the second you've played well in a match.

Hibbard, Owens? I don't think it really matters as both are quality players and good in the loose. Probably Owens first up as he's in the boss seat but no owrries with either for me, both powerful players. Can't wait, I think this welsh team is getting ready ready to rumble

Didn't Hibbard recently get criticised for not being 'fit enough' for playing rugby? or being a little overweight?

I really don't know how to feel about Saturday's game. I have a feeling that if we start well - as we did against Ireland, when we came close to being two tries up after the first ten or so minutes - then we could go on to win quite handsomely; but I keep stopping myself from thinking that, because of all the heavy defeats I've seen us suffer at Twickenham over the years. It's a strange one.

Luckless you sound the same as you did before the Ireland game in the RWC - Keep the faith and remember what I said then, these young lads can't wait to get out there and perform, they are confident and really up for it. This is not the welsh team of old, brittle with no backbone. I share your thoughts that if we do get a try early on we will go on to murder them - I said something similar before the Ireland game and we blew them away. It will be a tough ask but I think these boys will do what is required against a stumbling defensive Saes team.

Just occassionally I have ridiculously vivid dreams about watching upcoming rugby games and the scary thing is that the scores in the dreams turn out to be almost exactly reality.

The first time this happened was before the All Blacks - France 1999 RWC game. It happened again before the same fixture in 2007 and before France - Tonga in this years RWC, and the last time when I mistakenly believed England were going to beat Scotland 50-something to 3, but it turned out to be the U20 game, which I should have guessed because in the dream all of the players were midgets. ( I thought this was merely a Tindall reference creeping in ).

I had this experience again about the England - Wales game. I can say the score was 37-5 quite late in the game, about 10 to go at the time I was sleep watching, although whoever had 5 had just scored a try and I think had a one man advantage, there was a feeling of ascendency for whoever was trailing anyway.

The truely odd thing though was that it was really hard to figure out who was who, it was like the teams were wearing the wrong jerseys or something, or I was really drunk or had taken a smack to the head and was coming around from a semi-conscious state so I can't say who had the 37 and who had the 5.

I'm never wrong when there is this degree of lucidity though.

The good thing is that the players don't have the same fear of going to Twickenham that I sort of have on their behalf. As you say, they can't wait to get out there and play. It's good - but I still can't get rid of this feeling...!

luckless, if you remember the first world cup warm-up... That was a new look team and nobody knew what to expect. But they played with plenty of confidence and looked very good with ball in hand to be honest. I'd expect more on saturday.

I'm never wrong when there is this degree of lucidity though. .
miteyironpaw


But you're 10 points behind me in the guess the score comp though - Sorry Mighty England 16 Wales 24

Self justification alert.....

Robshaw4England

questioned why so many posters were up for Farrell at 10. I am one of them. I'd just to say that i was right. Mike Catt would play farrell barrit tuilagi and he knows a thing or two! Guscott who knows less said he'd go for Flood barrit tuilagi or Farrell barrit tuilagi.

SO there you have it. I am right.
p.s i authored another topic on Who wants it more England or Wales. Some people dared to suggest the premise was absurd. Well guess what i read yesterday.

"It will come down to who wants it more" Shane Williams

I am correct!! Woooohooooo to all the doubting Thomases!

Now Scoreline prediction

England 19 Wales 17

I was thinking of that game the other day, Morgannwg. It was a defeat, which is never good, but it really was a heartening performance and I didn't feel too down afterwards. I'd been tearing my hair out at the lack of invention in our back play: for nearly two seasons, all we'd ever done from first phase was get Jamie Roberts to crash the ball up, even though the opposition always knew it was coming, and we had this obsession with going to the blindside until there was no blindside left, and again, the opposition were always ready for it; but in this game, and ever since, we mixed it up. Rhys Priestland - who you'd never guess had only found out a few minutes before kick-off that he'd be playing ten - was genuinely playing what was in front of him and was prepared to change the gameplan accordingly. It was so refreshing to see.

Who wants it more is a load of Love sacks - they all want it - Skill, planning and execution will win the day not testosterone and bravado - Wales scored a dodgy try v Ireland last year which understandably annoyed Ireland - we then blew them out of the RWC - In Dublin they wanted it bad time and revenge was the word on the street - There endeth the lesson. Why all of a sudden are english fans hanging on to the words of Shane after they've ridiculed him for 12 years -

RubyGuby wrote:I'm never wrong when there is this degree of lucidity though. .
miteyironpaw


But you're 10 points behind me in the guess the score comp though - Sorry Mighty England 16 Wales 24

Yeah, I didn't see I always know. Just from time to time. I'm rubbish at guessing, it's difficult to be objective when your own team is involved and passion is high. I'm far better at predicting the outcomes of games where I don't care who wins.

Triangulation wrote:Self justification alert.....

Robshaw4England

questioned why so many posters were up for Farrell at 10. I am one of them. I'd just to say that i was right. Mike Catt would play farrell barrit tuilagi and he knows a thing or two! Guscott who knows less said he'd go for Flood barrit tuilagi or Farrell barrit tuilagi.

Mike Catt is in the enviable position of having people listen to his analysis whilst not being responsible for it. It's easy to big yourself up by realising there is a good shot England may lose and by pretending you would have averted this by naming a selection so unlikely that you know the currently responsible management will never go for it. If he were in the hot-seat I very much doubt he would name this combination.

Simon Barnes has a theory that it actually comes down to who wants it the least. By that, he means that the sportsman who can put his emotions to one side and see the game as a simple case of tasks to be done (the example he gives is of a striker focussing only on the task of putting a ball into a net) is likely to do better than a player who takes to the field full of emotion, too aware of the consequences of what he may or may not do, i.e. the joy of victory, the pain and recrimination that follow defeat.

I don't know if emotionless is good, there must be a fine line between disinterested and uninterested, but I always think enthusiasm and joy are better emotions than some of the grimacing and empassioned crying we see.

When I see players like Israel Dagg who always seems to be laughing while he's playing, or a prop who comes up smirking and winking, I wonder whether that isn't a better state of mind to be in, positive and having a go, kind of showing off but enjoying yourself rather than some of this trench-warfare blood and glory emotional stuff that gets drummed up in the media.

Emotionless is the wrong word, Mitey. A player can still be trying his damnedest to do what he's supposed to do, but he might fare better if he's concentrating on the task in hand rather than thinking of the potential prize that completing the task successfully will bring.

It's like Sir Clive Woodward's T-CUP thing.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Emotionless is the wrong word, Mitey. A player can still be trying his damnedest to do what he's supposed to do, but he might fare better if he's concentrating on the task in hand rather than thinking of the potential prize that completing the task successfully will bring.

It's like Sir Clive Woodward's T-CUP thing.

Graham Henry was in the telegraph (mostly peddling his pay-subscription website) talking about a very similar "redhead-bluehead" concept although it seemed to extend to complete psychological management on and off-field.

Even if England had gone into this match favourites, I still believe it will go any way as Wales's record against England has improved vastly in the past 10 meetings.

1997 - ENGLAND
1998 - ENGLAND
1999 - WALES
2000 - ENGLAND
2001 - ENGLAND
2002 - ENGLAND
2003 - ENGLAND
2003 - ENGLAND
2003 - ENGLAND
2004 - ENGLAND

10 matches - Wales win 1

2005 - WALES
2006 - ENGLAND
2007 - WALES
2007 - ENGLAND
2008 - WALES
2009 - WALES
2010 - ENGLAND
2011 - ENGLAND
2011 - ENGLAND
2011 - WALES

10 matches - Wales win 5

Wales had back to back victories in 2008 and 2009. The last time that happened was a 4 match winning streak from 1987 - 89.

Statistically Wales have a 50% chance of winning at the moment, but with the way the 2 teams have played so far and the backline Wales have, I would be very surprised if England pull off a win.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Simon Barnes has a theory that it actually comes down to who wants it the least. By that, he means that the sportsman who can put his emotions to one side and see the game as a simple case of tasks to be done (the example he gives is of a striker focussing only on the task of putting a ball into a net) is likely to do better than a player who takes to the field full of emotion, too aware of the consequences of what he may or may not do, i.e. the joy of victory, the pain and recrimination that follow defeat.

Simon Barnes is a clown. A lucid and intelligent clown but, when it comes to sport, a clown. I can't be doing with these 'chief sports writers' who trade off their ability to draw vague and simplistic comparisons across sports and ages that really have no bearing on each other. What is he? A psychologist? A philosopher? A historian?.....he sure as shoite ain't a sportsman: I remember reading a Barnes article circa 09 after one of Johnny's successful comebacks.....it was entitled: "England's solution: Give the ball to Johnny". A erudite grasp of gameplans and tactics there, Simon.

I like Simon Barnes. He writes well and he's usually spot on.

I'll have to agree to disagree there, Luckless.....I literally can't stand the bloke

That's okay.

Back on topic now, then: what do we think of Courtney Lawes and Alun Wyn Jones returning, whether from the start or from the bench? The last time Wales visited Twickenham in the Six Nations, Jones's needless trip on Dylan Hartley had a huge impact on the game. Is he likely to be so stupid again - or is Courtney Lawes the more likely to see yellow for a late hit or a shoulder charge?

Wales and England seem to have diametrically opposed approaches to match fitness and returning players (or have i missed something??)

While England supporters and most likely coaches torture themselves over questions of match fitness and how best to reintegrate Lawes, Flood and Tuilagi all of whom played for their clubs on the weekend….Wales seem to be more than happy to parachute players returning from injury straight back into the starting XV without any care in the world…….

Warburton, North, AWJ ?

Is this a mistake by the Welsh or are England too worried about match fitness?

idris wrote:
Statistically Wales have a 50% chance of winning at the moment.

No they don't! Where did you go to school? I really hope you don't have a qualification or a job in anything to do with statistical analysis, because that was just so completely wrong in so many ways that I can't begin to even start listing them.

Idris, you forget the draw and an abandoned match scenarios - its 25%.

miteyironpaw wrote:

idris wrote:
Statistically Wales have a 50% chance of winning at the moment.

No they don't! Where did you go to school? I really hope you don't have a qualification or a job in anything to do with statistical analysis, because that was just so completely wrong in so many ways that I can't begin to even start listing them.

Oh OK,

How about:

England have played terrible against the two weakest 6N teams and have only won their matches due to 2 lucky chargedowns? England have offered nothing in attack and have been lucky that Scotland and Italy could not finish off their passages of play.

Wales on the other hand have played some great rugby and produced a stunning win away in Dublin and comfortably saw off a dogged Scotland.

Despite home advantage and the return of Tuilagi etc.. Wales should win comfortably.

idris wrote:

Despite home advantage and the return of Tuilagi etc.. Wales should win comfortably.

I hate to butt in on this, but if you feel that Wales will win comfortably, shouldn't the probability of winning be over 50% anyway?

A 50:50 chance of winning infers that the game will be evenly matched, and both teams stand as good a chance as the other of winning.

Idris, I think what Mighty is trying to say is that Wales have a 90% plus chance of winning this game and that its not a 50/50

RubyGuby

bluestonevedder wrote:RubyGuby

Bluestone

bluestonevedder wrote:

idris wrote:

Despite home advantage and the return of Tuilagi etc.. Wales should win comfortably.

I hate to butt in on this, but if you feel that Wales will win comfortably, shouldn't the probability of winning be over 50% anyway?

A 50:50 chance of winning infers that the game will be evenly matched, and both teams stand as good a chance as the other of winning.

It implies... it doesn't infer.

RubyGuby wrote:Idris, I think what Mighty is trying to say is that Wales have a 90% plus chance of winning this game and that its not a 50/50

When did replace the full stop in Wales?

It hasn't, period.

Errr...thanks Mitey...?

But infer can also mean deduce or conclude a certain outcome from evidence or reasoning stated, i.e the 50:50 statement.

Yes exactly, you infer from the implication, the statement does not "infer", you do.

A 50% chance implies something. Or you infer from a 50% chance. A 50% chance doesn't infer.

Also a 50% chance doesn't actually imply an even game. Anymore than you might get a close coin toss. It could be a 50% chance of winning by 100 points, or losing by 100 points.

If you've inferred a close game then you haven't inferred that from a 50% chance, you've inferred that from some other evidence or belief not represented by that particular statistic.

Can someone get biltongbek in to sort out these statistics? Listing previous match-ups home and away between the two sides when both had different players and England had a different coaching team does not mean that 'statistically Wales have a 50% chance of winning at the moment'.

And yes - you infer something that the statement implies.

Fine if there are two potential outcomes to the game once it starts (therefore 1/2) but in this case there are four certain outcomes - Wales win, England win, draw, game abandoned up to point where result will stand, therefore 1/4 or 25%.

But you're concluding from the statement that there will be an even chance of either team winning.

Not sure I quite understand what this has to do with rugby mitey? Or why all of a sudden, you're pointing out the grammatical errors in people's posts?

If that floats your boat, there are a number of topic titles which are lacking possessive apostrophes.

5.4 = unity.

So statistically Wales winning is statistically no more likely than the game being abandoned?

Really? Fancy a bet on it at evens?

thomh

is correct. the words inference and conclusion are interchangeable. to infer something is to draw a conclusion about something.

Now quick sticks someone tell me how can it be that it is a good idea to parachute recently recovered from injury players such as

north , warburton and awj straight into a starting XV ?????

how can these guys be match fit?

North had his foot in a boot until the other day!!

Please someone explain this to me.

I was going to go for Sharples to replace Aston, Ashton to move to the left wing, but not any more, poor Charlie.

Morgan to start with Dickinson.

Don't think Flood should be there at all, and CH should be on the bench.

I think both Manu and Barrit should play with Farrell given the 10 and during training told to work on getting the attack flowing.

If that fails then CH can come off the bench.

Triangulation wrote:thomh
is correct. the words inference and conclusion are interchangeable. to infer something is to draw a conclusion about something.

That's not the issue. The issue is that a statistic doesn't infer something. Inference is outcome of analysis of a statistic. A statistic can't infer. Conclusion and inference might be interchangeable but implicication and inference are not.

Triangulation wrote:thomh

is correct. the words inference and conclusion are interchangeable. to infer something is to draw a conclusion about something.

Now quick sticks someone tell me how can it be that it is a good idea to parachute recently recovered from injury players such as

north , warburton and awj straight into a starting XV ?????

how can these guys be match fit?

North had his foot in a boot until the other day!!

Please someone explain this to me.

Because they're not. They'll be withdrawn from the squad at the last minute as per the last Twickenham visit.