If Wales played NZ tomorrow they would still lose by 20 points.

Let's be under no illusion. Yesterday was a dream and the record margin and ruthlessness was fantastic.

However, we have still yet to progress into the upper echelons of world rugby where the REAL tests lie.

Wales' "A-game" is superb, but it doesn't work on everyone, especially the SH sides. Wales need a top draw "B game AND C game" before they will win against a SH side and earn respect. For Wales to be the complete package they require:

a) the ruthlessness, anger, intensity and physicality of yesterday
b) the beautiful attacking rugby styles of 2005

Yes our two tries yesterday were beautifully executed but we haven't seen enough of that this tournament. At present we have two main problems..

a) South Africa would still equal or match our physicality
b) NZ would match us in the break down, beat us at the ruck and embarrass us in the backs

Yes 4 tournaments in 8 years is wonderful but I really REALLY want to see a platform built and real progress from here on in. Wales must show a ruthless side this autumn.

Of course they would,their probably still hungover

2 games in three days......... I think they would struggle

flyhalffactory wrote:2 games in three days......... I think they would struggle

Tipuric manages two games a day. He also builds 3 churches a week in Kenya and climbs kilamanjaro evert sunday for charity. You can see him pulling a train with his teeth at the next circus too. Personally his walking on water trick is the most entertaining.

Yes we would still lose. Why wouldn't we? This is what I never understand - how does winning the 6 nations, a tournament for teams around 4 - 10 in the world rankings, suddenly mean you can challenge no.1 in the world? Ridiculous. As someone else posted earlier, apart from England around the turn of the century, no one in the NH has done anything against the SH other than the odd win here and there. Nothing consistently. Mere blips. 1 offs. So, beating the 6N dross does not suddenly make us better on a world stage. Logically, how can it?

t1000advancedprototype wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:2 games in three days......... I think they would struggle

Tipuric manages two games a day. He also builds 3 churches a week in Kenya and climbs kilamanjaro evert sunday for charity. You can see him pulling a train with his teeth at the next circus too. Personally his walking on water trick is the most entertaining.

That would make him a good bench player behind McCaw then.

It would depend if NZ had the shixts or not

I agree Wales need to make their home ground a fortress, they must never lose to the Six Nation teams at the Millenium Stadium.

Then they need to find a way to grind wins if necessary against the SH teams.

I just don't understand why they struggle so much.

It must only be belief, that's the only answer I can come up with.

Biltong wrote:I agree Wales need to make their home ground a fortress, they must never lose to the Six Nation teams at the Millenium Stadium.

Then they need to find a way to grind wins if necessary against the SH teams.

I just don't understand why they struggle so much.

It must only be belief, that's the only answer I can come up with.

You have to understand the psychology of the Welsh media, fans and the players themselves. Winning a GS, and especially beating England, means that the team is put on a very high pedestal. They have then struggled to get back down to earth for the next set of games.*

I wouldn't mind that problem at the moment though

SA, Aus and NZ don't rest on their laurels.

* This is the first time for many years that Wales have put in two good 6N in a row, so maybe things are changing.

I think it's safe to assume Wales don't have much to prove at present as far as competing with other NH teams goes. Over the last two years, over the highs and lows of all the 6N sides, Wales have consistently come out top of the pile when it comes to playing each other. That of course could change over the next two seasons if we're unlucky but for the while I think it's fair to say nothing to prove when playing NH teams. After all one loss in the last ten 'domestic' games

That still cannot be said when playing SH opposition. We can give em a rugged test certainly but we still haven't beaten one of the big three in five years. The Lions tour may offer some impetus into whether that has changed and the AI afterwards should yield a real answer. Roll on em

Yesterday was fuelled by extreme passion from both fans and players and an atmosphere that made the occasion special. The MS has never been the worst venue when it comes to electricity but I felt the magnitude of yesterday was almost unprecedented from the way it sounded and was described by the guys in the thick of it. I'd say this offers the question why can't our players perform with that fire more often. I want to see it happening! It shouldn't exclusively take a high stakes game against England to spark that sort of ferocity, if we want to progress it should become a regular thing. We've shown we can do it before, back in the WC Wales were producing that high intensity game against everyone, hence why they comfortably beat or severely tested everyone they faced. There were still remnants of that consistency in last year's tournament but after that it evaporated. Hopefully the players will have learned lessons and will manage to replicate that hunger more often.

I think if that side had played against the AB's the same way it would have been a good match. Wales basically did to England what England did to NZ, and what the ABs do to many sides, tore through them up front and converted the few chances they had into tries. Backs AND forwards combined beautifully to produce the result.

That was rugby at its best, and ended a very flat middle of this 6N.

Trouble is, as both Wales and England have shown over the last year, repeating these types of performances let alone achieving any kind of consistency- the holy grail of any sport- proves difficult

I'm really not sure what any of you (mostly England and then Wales in this case) were praising regarding your sides' performances at any point in this year's 6 Nations. Certainly nothing to worry any of us down here. A mix of inconsistency and mediocrity, turning up for the odd game (though not producing anything particularly special) and then disappearing just as quickly again. In the last 6 months France against us, England against NZ and Wales against England the other day are prime examples, all looked like one-offs to everyone but yourselves, decent enough perfomances against sides who were rubbish on the day, results that wouldn't be replicated if the games were played again. Consistency in your performances is so poor that if you played the 6 Nations over I wouldn't be surprised to see every result reversed (something no doubt some of you would try and claim was due to the tournament's competitive nature, ignoring the low level of most of the games). Well built quality teams don't suddenly start producing good results after poor, their build up is more tangible and evident. Scorelines that are too good to be true, usually are in indicating where sides really are.

Hound_of_Harrow wrote:

Biltong wrote:I agree Wales need to make their home ground a fortress, they must never lose to the Six Nation teams at the Millenium Stadium.

Then they need to find a way to grind wins if necessary against the SH teams.

I just don't understand why they struggle so much.

It must only be belief, that's the only answer I can come up with.

You have to understand the psychology of the Welsh media, fans and the players themselves. Winning a GS, and especially beating England, means that the team is put on a very high pedestal. They have then struggled to get back down to earth for the next set of games.*

I wouldn't mind that problem at the moment though

SA, Aus and NZ don't rest on their laurels.

* This is the first time for many years that Wales have put in two good 6N in a row, so maybe things are changing.

Mate, look in your own back yard for media and hype, no one worse than England. Anything big happens the entire UK has to put up with English flags in their newspapers. Anyway we may get carried away but we still capable of beating you the last 3 times and let's face it what exactly have England done against SH in the last 10 years? By the way 30 -3

everyone knows the England win v NZ was an outlier...the ABs were sick, england capitalised. yesterday they appeared very average

100%beefy wrote:everyone knows the England win v NZ was an outlier...the ABs were sick, england capitalised. yesterday they appeared very average

You can say that if it makes you feel better.

But when was the last time Wales beat NZ?

majesticimperialman wrote:

100%beefy wrote:everyone knows the England win v NZ was an outlier...the ABs were sick, england capitalised. yesterday they appeared very average

You can say that if it makes you feel better.

But when was the last time Wales beat NZ?

.....or when was the last team England beat Wales

Friday night.

Well they lost to the women on Sunday too, ..... or was that Saturday ??

100%beefy wrote:everyone knows the England win v NZ was an outlier...the ABs were sick, england capitalised. yesterday they appeared very average

They did, less than average. Wales score against them looks like another outlier as well. Decent enough forwards performance but pretty blunt and unimaginative in the backs that capitalised on a shoddy England. With O'Driscoll past his best now our backs are going to have their opposite Lions numbers for breakfast. I'm not usually a betting man, but having watched the supposed best sides in the NH play at the weekend I've backed a 3-0 series win for us this winter. Easy money!

mzan - Don't forget the Lions will have a few Samoans in there, I here they like playing in Aus

RubyGuby wrote:mzan - Don't forget the Lions will have a few Samoans in there, I here they like playing in Aus

As do the Scots

GLove39 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:mzan - Don't forget the Lions will have a few Samoans in there, I here they like playing in Aus

As do the Scots

mzan wrote:

100%beefy wrote:everyone knows the England win v NZ was an outlier...the ABs were sick, england capitalised. yesterday they appeared very average

They did, less than average. Wales score against them looks like another outlier as well. Decent enough forwards performance but pretty blunt and unimaginative in the backs that capitalised on a shoddy England. With O'Driscoll past his best now our backs are going to have their opposite Lions numbers for breakfast. I'm not usually a betting man, but having watched the supposed best sides in the NH play at the weekend I've backed a 3-0 series win for us this winter. Easy money!

What is it they say about a fool and his money.

Wales lack the belief to beat the 3N teams, simple as that. Last year they won the slam playing pretty poorly but did so because they knew they could beat every team in the competition and, frankly, never really looked like losing.

They don't have that against the big 3 and in some ways choke when they get close to winning. This welsh team should not have lost the last 6 games against the current australia team, they are better than that.

You guys just need to get that 1 win which will give you the confidence to do it again.

I wonder if Australia, New Zealand or South africa worry about their A, B or C game plans vs teams like Wales?

SA doesn't have any other plan than kick, bash, bash, take a run, kick, bash, bash take a run.

Biltong wrote:SA doesn't have any other plan than kick, bash, bash, take a run, kick, bash, bash take a run.

That sounds like Wales, Australia and New Zealand too...!

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Hound_of_Harrow wrote:

Biltong wrote:I agree Wales need to make their home ground a fortress, they must never lose to the Six Nation teams at the Millenium Stadium.

Then they need to find a way to grind wins if necessary against the SH teams.

I just don't understand why they struggle so much.

It must only be belief, that's the only answer I can come up with.

You have to understand the psychology of the Welsh media, fans and the players themselves. Winning a GS, and especially beating England, means that the team is put on a very high pedestal. They have then struggled to get back down to earth for the next set of games.*

I wouldn't mind that problem at the moment though

SA, Aus and NZ don't rest on their laurels.

* This is the first time for many years that Wales have put in two good 6N in a row, so maybe things are changing.

Mate, look in your own back yard for media and hype, no one worse than England. Anything big happens the entire UK has to put up with English flags in their newspapers. Anyway we may get carried away but we still capable of beating you the last 3 times and let's face it what exactly have England done against SH in the last 10 years? By the way 30 -3

rainbow - read the whole of my post, not just the bit that suits your agenda. I am saying that I hope Wales kick on from this, and stop the 'boom and bust' rugby that has been the norm.

Plus it is only the so called 'red top' papers in England that go ott with the jingoistic bollox. Most rugby union fans I know don't read them because they don't carry much rugby coverage....until there's a bandwagon to jump on.

mzan wrote:I'm really not sure what any of you (mostly England and then Wales in this case) were praising regarding your sides' performances at any point in this year's 6 Nations. Certainly nothing to worry any of us down here. A mix of inconsistency and mediocrity, turning up for the odd game (though not producing anything particularly special) and then disappearing just as quickly again. In the last 6 months France against us, England against NZ and Wales against England the other day are prime examples, all looked like one-offs to everyone but yourselves, decent enough perfomances against sides who were rubbish on the day, results that wouldn't be replicated if the games were played again. Consistency in your performances is so poor that if you played the 6 Nations over I wouldn't be surprised to see every result reversed (something no doubt some of you would try and claim was due to the tournament's competitive nature, ignoring the low level of most of the games). Well built quality teams don't suddenly start producing good results after poor, their build up is more tangible and evident. Scorelines that are too good to be true, usually are in indicating where sides really are.

Yup. Too much bluster as always from the NH. All foreplay, no ejaculation.

Jello Biafra wrote:

mzan wrote:I'm really not sure what any of you (mostly England and then Wales in this case) were praising regarding your sides' performances at any point in this year's 6 Nations. Certainly nothing to worry any of us down here. A mix of inconsistency and mediocrity, turning up for the odd game (though not producing anything particularly special) and then disappearing just as quickly again. In the last 6 months France against us, England against NZ and Wales against England the other day are prime examples, all looked like one-offs to everyone but yourselves, decent enough perfomances against sides who were rubbish on the day, results that wouldn't be replicated if the games were played again. Consistency in your performances is so poor that if you played the 6 Nations over I wouldn't be surprised to see every result reversed (something no doubt some of you would try and claim was due to the tournament's competitive nature, ignoring the low level of most of the games). Well built quality teams don't suddenly start producing good results after poor, their build up is more tangible and evident. Scorelines that are too good to be true, usually are in indicating where sides really are.

Yup. Too much bluster as always from the NH. All foreplay, no ejaculation.

Jeremy Clarkson was right

The reason the big 3 are better than any team in the NH. Is because they play together for a longer part of the year. All NH teams come together for 6/7 weeks a year (6ns) and each other once.
Where as the SH teams in the rugby championship play each other 3/4 times a year......There fore having more game time together makes them better than the NH teams.

majesticimperialman wrote:The reason the big 3 are better than any team in the NH. Is because they play together for a longer part of the year. All NH teams come together for 6/7 weeks a year (6ns) and each other once.
Where as the SH teams in the rugby championship play each other 3/4 times a year......There fore having more game time together makes them better than the NH teams.

The Wallabies play the AB's 3 times and the Springboks twice each year. 5 games - which is equal the amount for a 6N campaign. I think the quality of opposition rather than the amount game time is a bigger factor, for Aust rugby at least. Having to compete and measure up against the AB's and Springboks is a good incentive to improve. One year in the RC and Argentina have improved markedly IMO. Give them a few more years playing against NZ, SA and Aust and it would be no surprise to see them rise to the top or thereabouts.

Jello Biafra wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:The reason the big 3 are better than any team in the NH. Is because they play together for a longer part of the year. All NH teams come together for 6/7 weeks a year (6ns) and each other once.
Where as the SH teams in the rugby championship play each other 3/4 times a year......There fore having more game time together makes them better than the NH teams.

The Wallabies play the AB's 3 times and the Springboks twice each year. 5 games - which is equal the amount for a 6N campaign. I think the quality of opposition rather than the amount game time is a bigger factor, for Aust rugby at least. Having to compete and measure up against the AB's and Springboks is a good incentive to improve. One year in the RC and Argentina have improved markedly IMO. Give them a few more years playing against NZ, SA and Aust and it would be no surprise to see them rise to the top or thereabouts.

..and where do most Argentinians play??

majesticimperialman wrote:The reason the big 3 are better than any team in the NH. Is because they play together for a longer part of the year. All NH teams come together for 6/7 weeks a year (6ns) and each other once.
Where as the SH teams in the rugby championship play each other 3/4 times a year......There fore having more game time together makes them better than the NH teams.

Oh that makes sense. So if the NH played eachother 3 or 4 times each a year theyd be 1-6. Its all so clear now.

In 2012

Argentina played 15 tests
Australia played 15 tests
New Zealand played 14 tests
Wales played 13 tests
South Africa played 12 tests
England played 12 tests
Ireland opplayed 10 tests
Scotland playe 10 tests
France played 10 tests.

Looks like 2012 was a Testing time

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:The reason the big 3 are better than any team in the NH. Is because they play together for a longer part of the year. All NH teams come together for 6/7 weeks a year (6ns) and each other once.
Where as the SH teams in the rugby championship play each other 3/4 times a year......There fore having more game time together makes them better than the NH teams.

The Wallabies play the AB's 3 times and the Springboks twice each year. 5 games - which is equal the amount for a 6N campaign. I think the quality of opposition rather than the amount game time is a bigger factor, for Aust rugby at least. Having to compete and measure up against the AB's and Springboks is a good incentive to improve. One year in the RC and Argentina have improved markedly IMO. Give them a few more years playing against NZ, SA and Aust and it would be no surprise to see them rise to the top or thereabouts.

..and where do most Argentinians play??

In the NH for some years...except it took a year in the RC to show this 'marked' improvement it seems.

Wales beat england because they can get up for an England game in a way they cant for any otrher team. So yes I agree they wouldnt breat NZ, but then what other team would tommorow..

Not sure about branding about 20 point margins or any margins mind. Thats all heresay