If Wales Not Thrashing Barbarians

First topic message reminder :

Will this be indicator of Wales have less depth than England?

England were destroy the Barbarians team last week with second strength side. Wales also name a less strength side with most first choosing combinator getting ready to flying. If Wales don't matching this job then will mean Welsh rugby is weaker? or mean the Barbarians coaching more and drink less beer?

wales606 wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Who is angry?

Odd phrasing to use for a non-english speaker.

Also if you are a Japan, Romania, Kenya and Spain supporter then why don't you write articles about them (we certainly don't have many on them) - rather than articles about Wales.

Guys, leave anotherworldofpain please.

It has been discussed, before.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Please discussing the rugby and not pick on my english.

Not at all, it is a very astute use of colloquial phrasing for someone who struggles with English sentence structure and grammar.

Wales606,

When Spain play Kenya next time you will have the artcile from me You must understand from this statement that I am tongue my cheek about meaning! I explain that just rugby of any one playing makes me interesting. Do you understand? Or I need to sketch the diagram?

Also, I am live in England now and I must make the effort for make fit with the culture and here current everyone interesting in Wales and England local rival and about Barbarians games happening, so is topic. Now please stay on the topic and not making personal attack.

And what you know about the grammatic of the other languages? Show me your degree in linguistic and I will listen your opinion then.

( We can discussing in the other language if it pleasing to you and we will see who is the astute then, and or is not colloquial or! But here rule is write in the English so I do it. )

AWOP, there is nothing wrong with your grammar(strangely) its just the way you word your sentences that give people the suspicion. You seem to know exactly where to put a question mark or a comma ect. This is something that usually comes after you know which order and how words should sound but you seem to have it back to front. Also the questions I have asked you are just genuine questions, so there is no need to get offended, if you do not want answer them then don't, I just wanted to give you a chance to prove yourself to others that you are not taking the mickey.

wales606 wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Please discussing the rugby and not pick on my english.

Not at all, it is a very astute use of colloquial phrasing for someone who struggles with English sentence structure and grammar.

What do people think about me then ?

LordDowlais how many languages you learn about? Least small problem is where putting the question mark and the comma. Punctuation marking by English is so simple except about apostraphe possessive and plural which make my head going around. More difficult is remember is get right the tense and stupid little words going between to make a rule up about grammatic.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

wales606 wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Please discussing the rugby and not pick on my english.

Not at all, it is a very astute use of colloquial phrasing for someone who struggles with English sentence structure and grammar.

What do people think about me then ?

Well, errrr, ummm, ..... nope, I got nothing.

PSW I am amaze at your ability to know where to put monkey face in the English sentence.

Can you teach me, or will LD at Wales606 think I am too astute?

biltongbek wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

wales606 wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Please discussing the rugby and not pick on my english.

Not at all, it is a very astute use of colloquial phrasing for someone who struggles with English sentence structure and grammar.

What do people think about me then ?

Well, errrr, ummm, ..... nope, I got nothing.

- you like that emoticon Biltong.

wales606 wrote:England played a lot of first team players. (Ashton, Foden, Barrett, Farrell, Dowson, Botha, Stevens, Hartley)

Wales are playing 2 first team players. (AWJ and Ian Evans - and thats debatable)

Is Matthew Rees not expected to be a starter in Aus? Similar to Dowson & Stevens, surely players like James Hook, Ryan Jones (otherwise Shingler/Tupuric), Lloyd Williams, Paul James and maybe Dan Biggar would be likely to feature in the test match side if not necessarily starting?

timhen wrote:

wales606 wrote:England played a lot of first team players. (Ashton, Foden, Barrett, Farrell, Dowson, Botha, Stevens, Hartley)

Wales are playing 2 first team players. (AWJ and Ian Evans - and thats debatable)

Is Matthew Rees not expected to be a starter in Aus? Similar to Dowson & Stevens, surely players like James Hook, Ryan Jones (otherwise Shingler/Tupuric), Lloyd Williams, Paul James and maybe Dan Biggar would be likely to feature in the test match side if not necessarily starting?

Rees is probably now second choice behind Ken Owens (certainly is in my book).

Even if that's true, that still puts Ryan Jones, Rees and Hook in the same ball park as Dowson, Stevens and one of Flood, Farrell or Barritt (at least one of them has to miss out with Tuilagi starting).

Put it this way - If Flood had started the Barbarians game you'd have listed him as a first team player. Surely the same applies to Hook?

Not going to be easy for Wales.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18282928
Some good battles to look-out for.

anotherworldofpain wrote:LordDowlais how many languages you learn about? Least small problem is where putting the question mark and the comma. Punctuation marking by English is so simple except about apostraphe possessive and plural which make my head going around. More difficult is remember is get right the tense and stupid little words going between to make a rule up about grammatic.

I actually speak two languages fluently English and Welsh, I can also speak a little bit of German as I had to learn it so I could speak to my customers, I am toying with idea with learning French so that I can ease the burden on my French customers who speak English, but that is as far as it goes, so there you are I have answered your question So, although you haven't answered any of mine I will take your word for now that you are not a phoney but although as you have said you find it hard to get the right tense with stupid little words but what you have posted after the one I have quoted you seem very adapt at sarcasm, I will leave it to other people to make their own minds up on this, so for now I will believe you, but for any future reference the jury is still open.

By giving us the word combinator he has earned his right to be free from post-posting persecution.

Out of genuine curiosity what is the Welsh for Welsh and is there a difference between the language and the people. I seem to recall a poster who has Cymru in his name which would be very useful with useless scrabble letters at the end of a game. But is that the language or the people or both?

Cymru = Wales. Cymraeg = Welsh .Cymro = Welshman .Cymraes = Welsh woman

Cymru - Wales
Cymreag - Welsh

I hope I have cleared that up for you.

Ah Cymroglan has beat me to it.

Ok cheers fellas.

What about Welsh Woman in pink shirt with daffodil hat? Cymraes Pcdafdyll?

thomh wrote:Even if that's true, that still puts Ryan Jones, Rees and Hook in the same ball park as Dowson, Stevens and one of Flood, Farrell or Barritt (at least one of them has to miss out with Tuilagi starting).

Put it this way - If Flood had started the Barbarians game you'd have listed him as a first team player. Surely the same applies to Hook?

Well Hook is nowhere near first choice.

Flood is your starting 10 according to many on here - Tuilangi is badly out of form so may well be 2nd choice (I think they will need Flood and Farrell on the pitch to combat SA kicking)

Hook is behind Beck, Williams, JD2 and Roberts in the centre where he is playing (and behind Preistland and probably Biggar at 10)

Either way, England's team had a lot more first team player, especially in the backs where Wales risk being badly outmatched and the Baabaas will be a lot tougher after 160 minutes of rugby and 2 weeks of practise (we always seem to play them last in the tour :/) - not to mention the addition of Shane and Nacewa on the wings.

Some real fools claim go be rugby fans, the logic of this article is beyond flawed,
No two games are ever the same for a start!
Also check the baa baa team sheet a far superior baa baa team will be playing wales, shane and isa ups the baa baa try scoring ability up by 90%

I agree England's team had more first teamers, but not by nearly as much as you're suggesting. You may be right about Hook, but the point about Stevens and Dowson vs Rees and Ryan Jones still stands for example.

viewtothegym wrote:Some real fools claim go be rugby fans

yes they do view yes they do

They sure do

Personally I hate rugby :p

thomh wrote:Even if that's true, that still puts Ryan Jones, Rees and Hook in the same ball park as Dowson, Stevens and one of Flood, Farrell or Barritt (at least one of them has to miss out with Tuilagi starting).

Put it this way - If Flood had started the Barbarians game you'd have listed him as a first team player. Surely the same applies to Hook?

Hook isn't first choice. Played himself well out of Wales selection in the world cup. I think he only made it off the bench once in the 6 Nations. Jones is the super-sub but could arguably be good enough as a starter in his current vein of form. Rees has fallen behind Owens (who will be in Australia training with the other 15), either of those or Hibbard are good enough to start IMO. I don't think anyone is certain what our first choice 2nd row should be but the one starting on saturday is the form pick. Why you even argueing about this? The team isn't anywhere near first choice, we wouldn't have 16 players going to Aus otherwise.

To me Foden, Ashton, Barrit, Farrell, Hodgson, Dickson, Hartley and Botha are first choice. All started in the 6 Nations.

*EDIT - just seen your other comment on the matter thomh .

viewtothegym wrote:check the baa baa team sheet a far superior baa baa team will be playing wales, shane and isa ups the baa baa try scoring ability up by 90%

I completely agree, it's a radically different side and infinitely more superior.


Muliana - Muliaina
Tindall - Tindall
Laulala - Laulala
Donald - Donald
Jones - Jones
Tialata - Tialata
August - August
Smit - Smit
van Zyl - van Zyl
Chisholm - Chisholm
Qera - Qera
Beattie - Beattie
Lawson - Lawson
Tagicakibau - Tagicakibau
de Malmanche - Afoa
O'Driscoll - Taele-Pavihi
Louw - Lakafia
Gorgodze - Joubert
Rees - Fillol
Nacewa - Contemponi
Williams - Sackey
Heymans - Balshaw

Is that the team we are playing ?

we're only playing the team on the left

gelodge wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:check the baa baa team sheet a far superior baa baa team will be playing wales, shane and isa ups the baa baa try scoring ability up by 90%

I completely agree, it's a radically different side and infinitely more superior.


Muliana - Muliaina
Tindall - Tindall
Laulala - Laulala
Donald - Donald
Jones - Jones
Tialata - Tialata
August - August
Smit - Smit
van Zyl - van Zyl
Chisholm - Chisholm
Qera - Qera
Beattie - Beattie
Lawson - Lawson
Tagicakibau - Tagicakibau
de Malmanche - Afoa
O'Driscoll - Taele-Pavihi
Louw - Lakafia
Gorgodze - Joubert
Rees - Fillol
Nacewa - Contemponi
Williams - Sackey
Heymans - Balshaw

This one deserves a, *gulp*, smiley, but I don't know how to do 'em!!

However, if it was indeed the purpose of this Croturromealnder to start a little of the old english/welsh shannaningans, he appears to have scored a hole in one!!

gelodge wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:check the baa baa team sheet a far superior baa baa team will be playing wales, shane and isa ups the baa baa try scoring ability up by 90%

I completely agree, it's a radically different side and infinitely more superior.


Muliana - Muliaina
Tindall - Tindall
Laulala - Laulala
Donald - Donald
Jones - Jones
Tialata - Tialata
August - August
Smit - Smit
van Zyl - van Zyl
Chisholm - Chisholm
Qera - Qera
Beattie - Beattie
Lawson - Lawson
Tagicakibau - Tagicakibau
de Malmanche - Afoa
O'Driscoll - Taele-Pavihi
Louw - Lakafia
Gorgodze - Joubert
Rees - Fillol
Nacewa - Contemponi
Williams - Sackey
Heymans - Balshaw

Thats one messed up team. If Mils is playing Prop we are in luck.

Lawson isn't playing against us, Richie Rees is - Contepomi doesn't play on the wing so why is he paired with Nacewa. Heymans is on the bench Balshaw started. Afoa played 3, Smit is playing 3. There are many others, but its making my eyes hurt.

I have no idea what your list means at all.

Team vs England

15. Mils Muliaina
14. Paul Sackey 44'
13. Casey Laulala
12. Mike Tindall 68'
11. Iain Balshaw
10. Stephen Donald
9. Rory Lawson 57'
1. Neemia Tialata 60'
2. John Smit 60'
3. John Afoa
4. Mark Chisholm
5. Anton van Zyl
6. Ernst Joubert
7. Akapusi Qera 60'
8. Johnnie Beattie 68'


16. Benoit August 60'
17. Duncan Jones 60'
18. Pelu Taele-Pvihi 68'
19. Raphael Lakafia 60'
20. Jerome Fillol 57'
21. Felipe Contepomi 68'
22. Sailosi Tagicakibau


Team vs Wales

15. M Muliana
14. I Nacewa
13. M Tindall
12. C Laulala
11. S Williams
10. S Donald
9. R Rees

1. D Jones
2. B August
3. J Smit (captain)
4. M O'Driscoll
5. M Chisholm
6. F Louw
7. J Beattie
8. M Gorgodze

Reps: A de Malmanche, N Tialata, A Van Zyl, A Qera, R Lawson, S Tagicakibau, C Heymans.



Changes
Nacewa for Sackey
Williams for Balshaw
Rees for Lawson
Jones for Tialata
August for Afoa
O'Driscoll for Van Zyl
Louw for Joubert
Gorgodze for Qera

Yeah, O struggled to follow that as well, sure it made sense at the time.

wales606 wrote:

gelodge wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:check the baa baa team sheet a far superior baa baa team will be playing wales, shane and isa ups the baa baa try scoring ability up by 90%

I completely agree, it's a radically different side and infinitely more superior.


Muliana - Muliaina
Tindall - Tindall
Laulala - Laulala
Donald - Donald
Jones - Jones
Tialata - Tialata
August - August
Smit - Smit
van Zyl - van Zyl
Chisholm - Chisholm
Qera - Qera
Beattie - Beattie
Lawson - Lawson
Tagicakibau - Tagicakibau
de Malmanche - Afoa
O'Driscoll - Taele-Pavihi
Louw - Lakafia
Gorgodze - Joubert
Rees - Fillol
Nacewa - Contemponi
Williams - Sackey
Heymans - Balshaw

Thats one messed up team. If Mils is playing Prop we are in luck.

Lawson isn't playing against us, Richie Rees is - Contepomi doesn't play on the wing so why is he paired with Nacewa. Heymans is on the bench Balshaw started. Afoa played 3, Smit is playing 3. There are many others, but its making my eyes hurt.

I have no idea what your list means at all.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious, but I'll explain it for you. The side by side lists are the match squads in non-numerical order. The names ordered to the top which are the same either side of the hyphen are the players that appear in both match 22s.

Lawson is playing against you, he's on the bench. Contemponi was listed next to Nacewa because for some reason the Barbarians have decided not to have a backup FH against Wales but include an extra back 3 player, so there was no one appropriate to place Contemponi's name next to.

Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

#EARexcusesLY

timhen wrote:Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

Exactly

Although seriously, the Baabaas team is slightly stronger and better prepared, the Wales team is slightly weaker. To the level that a win will be a good achievement and a loss would be disappointing but not surprising.

Also, nobody seems to be mentioning that the Baabaas beat Ireland on Tuesday.

wales606 wrote:

timhen wrote:Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

Exactly

Although seriously, the Baabaas team is slightly stronger and better prepared, the Wales team is slightly weaker. To the level that a win will be a good achievement and a loss would be disappointing but not surprising.

Also, nobody seems to be mentioning that the Baabaas beat Ireland on Tuesday.

finland - lols to many for you sir.

AWOP another successfull thread dude- you certainly get hits

timhen wrote:Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

#EARexcusesLY

Where did you finish in the 6 Nations again???

Also, hi nottins/englandrugbyfan . I hope you enjoyed your short stay with V2 because by dawn you'll be banned again. Go and find a life, and a personality if possible. Grand Slams in 2005, 08 and 12 plus a better world cup finish than England must really wind you up.

wales606 wrote:

timhen wrote:Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

Exactly

Although seriously, the Baabaas team is slightly stronger and better prepared, the Wales team is slightly weaker. To the level that a win will be a good achievement and a loss would be disappointing but not surprising.

Also, nobody seems to be mentioning that the Baabaas beat Ireland on Tuesday.

Is it? They should certainly be better prepared with a few weeks and games under their belt, but in terms of starting personnel whilst they gain in the new wings they lose out with the changes to their front five. And as Geloge pointed out, if Donald gets injured or tires who is going to take over at 10, Tindall?

Morgannwg wrote:

timhen wrote:Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

#EARexcusesLY

Where did you finish in the 6 Nations again???

Also, hi nottins/englandrugbyfan . I hope you enjoyed your short stay with V2 because by dawn you'll be banned again. Go and find a life, and a personality if possible. Grand Slams in 2005, 08 and 12 plus a better world cup finish than England must really wind you up.

are you being ironic dude?

johnpartle wrote:

wales606 wrote:

timhen wrote:Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

Exactly

Although seriously, the Baabaas team is slightly stronger and better prepared, the Wales team is slightly weaker. To the level that a win will be a good achievement and a loss would be disappointing but not surprising.

Also, nobody seems to be mentioning that the Baabaas beat Ireland on Tuesday.

Is it? They should certainly be better prepared with a few weeks and games under their belt, but in terms of starting personnel whilst they gain in the new wings they lose out with the changes to their front five.

Duncan Jones was stronger than Tialata off the bench vs England

M.O'Driscoll has forced Van Zyl onto the bench

Richie Rees is out to prove a point to Howley and I think will be more dangerous than Lawson.

To be honest I don't know much about the other baabaas forwards, although they may well lose some scrummaging with Smit replacing Afoa (but then when do the baabaas bother with scrums anyway)

mystiroakey wrote:
are you being ironic dude?

mysti, I can never understand your posts. The only thing each posting has in common is that they're boring. Do you want to discuss something rugby with me? Try not to bore me too much though .

mystiroakey wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

timhen wrote:Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

#EARexcusesLY

Where did you finish in the 6 Nations again???

Also, hi nottins/englandrugbyfan . I hope you enjoyed your short stay with V2 because by dawn you'll be banned again. Go and find a life, and a personality if possible. Grand Slams in 2005, 08 and 12 plus a better world cup finish than England must really wind you up.

are you being ironic dude?

Definition of ironic.

1. The use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

1. Please describe where in the above post Irony was used
2. I get annoyed at people who don't understand the meaning of the word 'Irony'

While were on the subject, can people stop saying loose when they mean lose

Yeah mysti! And this 'loose' business is irritating too.

wales606 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

timhen wrote:Surely it's clear to all that the Baa-Baas side set to face Wales' 8th string would be good enough to win a World Cup whilst the in no way similar side that England faced wouldn't be capable of beating Finland.

#EARexcusesLY

Where did you finish in the 6 Nations again???

Also, hi nottins/englandrugbyfan . I hope you enjoyed your short stay with V2 because by dawn you'll be banned again. Go and find a life, and a personality if possible. Grand Slams in 2005, 08 and 12 plus a better world cup finish than England must really wind you up.

are you being ironic dude?

Definition of ironic.

1. The use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

1. Please describe where in the above post Irony was used
2. I get annoyed at people who don't understand the meaning of the word 'Irony'

ermm so you strangely(ironic in your sense- get it) only posted one definition of irony - which is more linked to how we describe sarchasm.



"a.
a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.
(especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
"

your post was contradictary through 'character' and development- you said others should get a life- yet your post was as childish as it gets.