Opinions on Gatland and his ideas?

Let's try to keep this civil and leave out the ref blaming, we all know who that is aimed at... This thread is set up to question ideas and their implications. It is not intended to criticise anyone but if doing so, please do so constructively and give good evidence.
Gats is a great coach with a great CV, I've always backed him to lead us and I still do. I feel he's got a lot of things right in his coaching career with Wales and the Lions, but also feel he's got a fair few things wrong (only with Wales, not the Lions). I find his post-match comments a bit distasteful;

Sir Warren wrote:Rhys Webb, he's done a box-kick that's gone straight up in the air, that's put us under a huge amount of pressure

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the team playing under his orders to kick? There was too much kicking last night, I'm not sure whether that was the game plan (probably) or the players playing what was in front of them. England just ran it back it us like they did last year. How can professionals be so stupid in not to expect this? Before the tournament kicked off Gatland also gave the impression that we'd be reverting back to old ways for this tournament and then try something new at the RWC, perhaps akin to the variation seen from Wales in the autumn series. I don't see the point of not taking this tournament seriously, especially so close to the world cup where winning it would have been a good platform for greater things.

Going back to the point about Webb, I thought he was alright, one of our better performers (even though not many really performed). I believe the culprits were the out of sorts players that he selected, the ones that many fans agreed should not have been selected in the first place. Saying that, nobody really performed to expectations or executed well. I'm not even sure what we were trying to do at the time if I'm honest. We didn't even grow into the game unlike the opposition, we seemed to drift away from it.

Sir Warren wrote:Even if we'd won today, I don't think you can read too much into it ahead of the World Cup in seven months

Sir Clive said something like this before the game last night. It's totally wrong IMO and a loser statement to make. As I said, winning all your games is the ideal build-up for the world cup. That and these teams are group opponents. If that doesn't make the result greatly important for both teams then I don't know what will. Also, surely a wooden spoon would not be ideal going into a tournament containing better teams than in the 6 Nations?

I expect our coach to now come out and say these players underperformed but will be afforded another chance to impress, as this is what usually happens. If we do beat Scotland then everything will be assumed normal, until the same group executing the same style of play get another absolute thumping from a team playing smart rugby (Ireland). The coach isn't the only one at fault. Our players didn't want to be there it seemed from the body language. Our set-up hinders us, as 4 clubs doesn't produce enough players nor can they keep hold of their best ones, hence a very weak bench and some rusty players being played into key positions. Not selecting Adam Jones was a big call, I believe him and Lee should both be in our 23.

So what do we think about his ideas?

One big problem is that in general the out of form players where there were form replacements were in the backs, but ultimately you lost the game through being beat up in the forwards.

Good comments, mate.  I think you are right that the players are mostly executing the game plan.  If Gatland wants a tactical kicking game, this is clearly how they played.  So I do think a lot of the kicking, even when it seemed there was a good time to take the ball up and recycle, was at his direction.  And in yesterday's match, that game plan appeared to play to England strengths.  Perhaps if England dropped or mishandled some of the kicks we might be saying something different today.  

On the other hand, it seemed to me that Wales were not playing with the usual energy I have become accustomed to seeing.  At times it seemed a kind of slow motion.  Slower to the breakdown, slower to get the ball out, and only occasionally runners opening it up with some real pace.  I don't know what to make of this, but this is how it seemed to me.  The England lads, especially in the second half, seemed just a half-step quicker.  Over-trained at practice, maybe?  Just my observation.

Wales fell for the publicity more than England did.  They came to win the 'BIG' game in the first half, using the expectant crowd as ready fuel - England came to win it in the second.
Wales were spent halfway into the second as England were only rising to their well planned and drilled for 'purple' patch.  They knew Wales were on the crest of the emotion during the lead in week and just waited for them to exhaust themselves on the nervous energy.

So tactics is I suppose Gatland's weakness.  When his side win they win on sheer bloody minded pace, aggression and accuracy (which can be a heady mix when they're on an adrenalin roll) - but guile teams can't be intimidated by that show over and over again.  Gatland needs a few plan Bs - and most especially he needs a more niggly, slowing down, less honest gameplan to stall and hinder an opposition side that is beginning to get an upper hand in momentum.

When Wales get panicked they get loose and try to intinctively play rugby from everywhere on the field - trying to run the game out of their own half whilst losing being an example.  When they do this against more ordinary sides it can be effective and it might even be considered a Plan B.  But that's no Plan B against a well drilled defensive minded side with the lungs to go toe to toe with Wales.

Perhaps that's the biggest weakness that Gatland now has.  For a number of years he probably took physical and conditioning preparedness to the highest levels amongst the 6N and made that seriousness of approach pay as opposition sides wilted under the constant frenetic energy that Wales could sustain.  Teams simply couldn't keep with them.  But now there has been a jump in conditioning through most 6N squads.  That Achille's tendon that Gatland often preyed on in the opposition is no longer there for most of them.

I think we've had Gatland at the helm for too long. Sometimes it's just better and more efficient to bring in a new coach, rather than trying to get the same coach to reinvent himself and his ideas. It will be 8 years in charge by the next 6N. 2 World Cup cycles. I think he's contracted til 2020 or something? Time for a change. And that's not knee jerk, I've been suggesting it for a while. But wait til the World Cup is over though. Contractually we're screwed if we fancy a change however!

Saint, first of all, kicking is part of the game, any kick is too much if it is poorly executed or poorly conceived.

In the first half the Welsh kicking was top notch, it worked in that it kept Wales in the right areas of the field and it found plenty of space behind the opposition.

In the second half however the kicking became aimless and that is when it becomes too much.

Wales did very well at the breakdowns, they were committed, their scrum looked to struggle at times, and by memory did you not lose a few line outs?

The problem for Wales lies in their predictable play, and not varying the point of attack, there are also very few attempts to offload in the tackle.

Biltong wrote:Saint, first of all, kicking is part of the game, any kick is too much if it is poorly executed or poorly conceived.

In the first half the Welsh kicking was top notch, it worked in that it kept Wales in the right areas of the field and it found plenty of space behind the opposition.

In the second half however the kicking became aimless and that is when it becomes too much.

Wales did very well at the breakdowns, they were committed, their scrum looked to struggle at times, and by memory did you not lose a few line outs?

The problem for Wales lies in their predictable play, and not varying the point of attack, there are also very few attempts to offload in the tackle.

Agree with this last point completely. where was the devil and pace exhibited by a combination of Roberts, Davies and Halfpenny that we've seen them display in other matches, including the Lions when they were superb. With North and Cuthbert able to come into the line at the right times, they should have been a lot more penetrating and deadly than they were. North's injury did not help, and I wonder if Cuthbert is really the answer on the other wing, as opposed to a more feisty player such as Williams?

Let's see how they do against Scotland in Murrayfield who must be feeling more confident about getting a home win after last night's display. But they've got France first, so maybe not get too far ahead.

I thought Liam Williams did a lot more in his cameo than Cuthbert did the entire game.

JD2 is not quite the same player who went out to France. I would like to see Scott Williams in the centres.

With North out I'd give Amos a chance, find a spot for Gareth Davies in the 23 too.

But mainly allow the players to identify when to kick and when to run, but accept the odd bad decision.

The Welsh problems begin and end with distribution from the ruck in broken play.

Rhys Webb and Philips were clones of each other. They offered nothing. Welsh players were carrying fearlessly and creating what should've been momentum.mbut at each breakdown Webb and then Philips held a committee meeting,pointing and mouthing off and dallying, then either a shuffling pass to a lateral and leaden footed mid fielder or forward who was enveloped by a waiting and set line.

Both are too slow to arrive, too indecisive and kicked away possession continually and with no accuracy. Wales threatened just once in the game. Once. Due to England's awful narrow defence, they scored.

The back line all but gave up, had no chance to run lines, and halfpenny was only engaged when returning the ball from deeps - notably with little in the way of support.

It was a snail paced lack lustre abomination. Can this be what garland is coaching? I hope not.

Webb didn't have a good game, agreed, but you do not describe his general game accurately. He's had a good season scoring plenty of tries by sniping around the fringes, using his pace to score a number of longer distance tries too, plus plenty of quick tap and goes. We saw this in the autumn too. But not last night.

I'm not talking about his season, I'm talking about his display last night!

Perhpas you should have said 'the Welsh problems began' instead of 'Welsh problems begin'; and 'were too slow to arrive' rather than 'are too slow', etc. That would have indicated discussion about last night rather than generally

Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

This is just my simplistic view but it seems to me that Wales have quality players so it must surely be down to the coaching/selection?

Biltong wrote:Saint, first of all, kicking is part of the game, any kick is too much if it is poorly executed or poorly conceived.

In the first half the Welsh kicking was top notch, it worked in that it kept Wales in the right areas of the field and it found plenty of space behind the opposition.

In the second half however the kicking became aimless and that is when it becomes too much.

Wales did very well at the breakdowns, they were committed, their scrum looked to struggle at times, and by memory did you not lose a few line outs?

The problem for Wales lies in their predictable play, and not varying the point of attack, there are also very few attempts to offload in the tackle.

This is what I highlighted. The question is are we playing under orders, or are our players just not capable of playing against what is in front of them? Surely Gats can't be expecting a repeat of SA every week (where the kicking game worked, we executed a bit better, and the opposition made too many errors).

I think we did do well at the breakdown too, so can't understand some comments slagging off our back row. Someone also said we were completely outmuscled. We were on some occasions, but not throughout. We were however, completely outsmarted for 40 minutes - that was the difference. We certainly aren't smart. I think Gats could do with dropping some players and assistant coaches!

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

Where is the offence? You just seemed to be talking about those 2 being similar generally. Why would I be offended? I've never even met them

Heaf wrote:This is just my simplistic view but it seems to me that Wales have quality players so it must surely be down to the coaching/selection?

Yes, agree totally.

Heaf wrote:This is just my simplistic view but it seems to me that Wales have quality players so it must surely be down to the coaching/selection?

As we keep pointing out, when we get injuries we don't have many. We need to improve our domestics so we can develop more players and more to a higher standard. There's a number of changes that need to take place but that's another discussion. As we've also pointed out there were some high quality players just not picked.

For the next game the following players should come into the 23: Rob Evans*, Kristian Dacey, Gareth Davies, Gareth Anscombe, Scott Williams*, Hallam Amos*, Liam Williams*.

The * denotes a starting player.

Hence why I said coaching/selection

Heaf wrote:Hence why I said coaching/selection

Seems that you agree then .

The problem is Gatland is stubborn (we know that) but even more stubborn just before a World Cup. His time for any experimentation was post-the last world cup. He won't start tinkering with his 1st team now. He'll just try to get those lucky 15 to play better. That's always been his way - back the player to improve rather than a replacement to take over.

I'd certainly have those you mention in the squad and perhpas playing. England showed last night what can happen if you give players a chance, although I appreciate their hand was forced. Not saying out 2nd choice are as good as theirs.  We'll never know now I guess. But at least some of those you mention are in form. Unlike a lot of our first 15.

I've said it before but I don't see the point of Halfpenny being there. Williams can defend and take high balls like him; Biggar's kick % is not far off, but without the range I guess. But 1/2p is nothing in attack. So if others can do the kicking and defending just as well then what qualities are making him undroppable? It's like being down to 14 men in attack with him on the pitch. Bit harsh maybe! But Williams brings so much more.

To be honest I don't know enough about the players to make a fair comparison but based on quite a few comments I've read it seems there is some dissatisfaction from those who know more than I with who Gats is selecting in some cases.

This is what happens when you don't pick form players, and those who have been sat on the bench in France.

Liam Williams and Scott Williams should have been involved from the start.

But we all know what the team next week will be, exactly the same, except maybe Webb will be dropped for Phillips because Gatland did single him out a bit. North might also be ruled out with a concussion?

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

Where is the offence? You just seemed to be talking about those 2 being similar generally. Why would I be offended? I've never even met them

Yesterday they played the same: pedestrian and predictable. That's all too often the case with a Welsh 9 and why they are worked out, worn down and beaten in the second half.

Griff wrote:
I've said it before but I don't see the point of Halfpenny being there. Williams can defend and take high balls like him; Biggar's kick % is not far off, but without the range I guess. But 1/2p is nothing in attack. So if others can do the kicking and defending just as well then what qualities are making him undroppable? It's like being down to 14 men in attack with him on the pitch. Bit harsh maybe! But Williams brings so much more.

The qualities being he's one of our best back-three players. Does a lot of what North and Cuthbert can not do (kick, pass, catch, catch a high ball, tackle). I would like to see Williams at 15 for Wales a bit more often though, but that doesn't mean I want Halfpenny dropped to the bench.

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

Where is the offence? You just seemed to be talking about those 2 being similar generally. Why would I be offended? I've never even met them

Yesterday they played the same: pedestrian and predictable. That's all too often the case with a Welsh 9 and why they are worked out, worn down and beaten in the second half.

That was the Welsh team last night, not our No.9. Stop looking for a scapegoat.

Gatland should have picked and played the form backs Liam and Scot Williams.
Drop JD2 & either Cuthbert or North.
I'm guessing that Samson Lee wasn't 100% and if that was the case it shows lack of depth in this position.

I think Wales will come good but knocks in the game to Biggar & North & Webb having an unusually bad game, didn't help matters.

[quote="chris_501"]I thought Liam Williams did a lot more in his cameo than Cuthbert did the entire game.

He also done more than North who just flapped at Jospeh like big girls blouse.

The try aside Webb did have a poor game and his box kicking gave me kittens all night as they were charge downs waiting to happen and his service was as slow as Phillips' last night, that said he has been on great form so is in credit.

For next week I would go with:

James Hibbard Lee (lets hope hes fit)
AWJ Ball (though be happy if Charteris got a start)
Warburton Faletau Tipuric (think the Scots game will suit his style more)

Webb (with orders to sort his box kicks out)
Biggar

Halfpenny
Doc
Sc Williams
Amos

Li Williams

The Saint wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

Where is the offence? You just seemed to be talking about those 2 being similar generally. Why would I be offended? I've never even met them

Yesterday they played the same: pedestrian and predictable. That's all too often the case with a Welsh 9 and why they are worked out, worn down and beaten in the second half.

That was the Welsh team last night, not our No.9. Stop looking for a scapegoat.

What the hell? Scapegoat? Last night wales offered nothing because the play at 9 was substandard, and unprofessional. That's called a REASON, but you can get on with blaming the referee and whinging in a generic manner about the coach, but it offers nothing.

the one which surprised me was Tipuric not being brought on. When you're chasing the game, as Wales were in the last 10-15 minutes yesterday, not sure the tackler/scavenger combination is the right one, whereas Tipuric with his great pace offers something different. Other than that, Scott Williams should probably have started, but Davies and Roberts both had excellent games in Europe the week before, so at least could understand that call. As I said on the match thread though, Davies is too good a player to be used exclusively as a crashball, and not particularly good on the crashball in any case...

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

The Saint wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

Where is the offence? You just seemed to be talking about those 2 being similar generally. Why would I be offended? I've never even met them

Yesterday they played the same: pedestrian and predictable. That's all too often the case with a Welsh 9 and why they are worked out, worn down and beaten in the second half.

That was the Welsh team last night, not our No.9. Stop looking for a scapegoat.

What the hell? Scapegoat? Last night wales offered nothing because the play at 9 was substandard, and unprofessional. That's called a REASON, but you can get on with blaming the referee and whinging in a generic manner about the coach, but it offers nothing.

Oh good lord. There has been no ref whingeing from the Welsh, which surprises me greatly actually, but credit where it's due. It was you and your english buddies that criticised every single decision.

And to call him 'unprofessional'. Turning up drunk is unprofessional. Swearing at the fans is unprofessional. Not playing very well is not unprofessional at all. I'm struggling to see your point with that one.

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

The Saint wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

Where is the offence? You just seemed to be talking about those 2 being similar generally. Why would I be offended? I've never even met them

Yesterday they played the same: pedestrian and predictable. That's all too often the case with a Welsh 9 and why they are worked out, worn down and beaten in the second half.

That was the Welsh team last night, not our No.9. Stop looking for a scapegoat.

What the hell? Scapegoat? Last night wales offered nothing because the play at 9 was substandard, and unprofessional. That's called a REASON, but you can get on with blaming the referee and whinging in a generic manner about the coach, but it offers nothing.

Oh good lord. There has been no ref whingeing from the Welsh, which surprises me greatly actually, but credit where it's due. It was you and your english buddies that criticised every single decision.

And to call him 'unprofessional'. Turning up drunk is unprofessional. Swearing at the fans is unprofessional. Not playing very well is not unprofessional at all. I'm struggling to see your point with that one.

I think this clown (who is apparently a Wales fan I'm very ashamed to say) is best ignored. He posted some similar idiotic comments last night about Webb and is continuing in the same stream today. He also seems to have a problem with people disagreeing with him, which is pretty sad.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the one which surprised me was Tipuric not being brought on. When you're chasing the game, as Wales were in the last 10-15 minutes yesterday, not sure the tackler/scavenger combination is the right one, whereas Tipuric with his great pace offers something different. Other than that, Scott Williams should probably have started, but Davies and Roberts both had excellent games in Europe the week before, so at least could understand that call. As I said on the match thread though, Davies is too good a player to be used exclusively as a crashball, and not particularly good on the crashball in any case...

Davies blows hot and cold IMO, he has done so for long phases throughout his career. When he's hot though he is an extremely good player and seems to get by Gatland on that reputation, but he hasn't been good this season. Therefore you would go for a form pick in Scott Williams right? I also don't think Tips has played particularly well, certainly nowhere good enough to be in our 23 ahead of the outstanding Josh Navidi.

The Saint wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the one which surprised me was Tipuric not being brought on. When you're chasing the game, as Wales were in the last 10-15 minutes yesterday, not sure the tackler/scavenger combination is the right one, whereas Tipuric with his great pace offers something different. Other than that, Scott Williams should probably have started, but Davies and Roberts both had excellent games in Europe the week before, so at least could understand that call. As I said on the match thread though, Davies is too good a player to be used exclusively as a crashball, and not particularly good on the crashball in any case...

Davies blows hot and cold IMO, he has done so for long phases throughout his career. When he's hot though he is an extremely good player and seems to get by Gatland on that reputation, but he hasn't been good this season. Therefore you would go for a form pick in Scott Williams right? I also don't think Tips has played particularly well, certainly nowhere good enough to be in our 23 ahead of the outstanding Josh Navidi.

I agree. Whenever I've seen Scott Williams this season he's looked excellent. You could be right on Navidi, but my point was that Tipuric should still have come on, he'd have offered more than Warbs/Lydiate when Wales were chasing the game.

Never thought i would say this but Phillips actually quickened the game up when he came on which is a testament of how poor Webb is. Never really rated him anyway.

I think the balance is not correct in the forwards. You have a good workmanlike pack but I feel you are maybe missing a carrier or two in the pack. We all know that your big carriers are in the backs but last night thought you needed to keep the England forwards more honest in defending the ruck area so Roberts etc were always running at opposition backs and not backs with one of England`s back 5 forwards able to double up. Brian Moore this week in his torygrapgh column said ideally you`d like a carrier in each row of the forwards and I kind of agree with that. Faletau carriers well but he`s more of a break into space carrier and not a tie defenders up carrier if that make`s sense. Maybe Lydiate has the physical attributes to do it but it doesn`t seem part of his game at the moment. I don`t see much of the Pro12 but is there maybe an ball carrying 8 worth trying with Faletau moving to 6? Or maybe a carrying second row alongside Wyn-Jones (who I thought was one of the better Welsh players last night).

Also agree with the sentiment of picking in form players like Liam Williams but Gatland has set his stall out with 4 big players in the back line and maybe he feels that having more of a flyer type back will disrupt the tactics too much.

It's okay having a predicable gameplan as long as the opposition can`t stop it but it means your in trouble if the opposition can nullify it and you don't have an alternative.

JD hasn't played much for Clermont so is not a good choice at the moment I just hope he goes with Sc Williams and Doc next week.

B91212 wrote:I think the balance is not correct in the forwards. You have a good workmanlike pack but I feel you are maybe missing a carrier or two in the pack. We all know that your big carriers are in the backs but last night thought you needed to keep the England forwards more honest in defending the ruck area so Roberts etc were always running at opposition backs and not backs with one of England`s back 5 forwards able to double up. Brian Moore this week in his torygrapgh column said ideally you`d like a carrier in each row of the forwards and I kind of agree with that. Faletau carriers well but he`s more of a break into space carrier and not a tie defenders up carrier if that make`s sense. Maybe Lydiate has the physical attributes to do it but it doesn`t seem part of his game at the moment. I don`t see much of the Pro12 but is there maybe an ball carrying 8 worth trying with Faletau moving to 6? Or maybe a carrying second row alongside Wyn-Jones (who I thought was one of the better Welsh players last night).

Also agree with the sentiment of picking in form players like Liam Williams but Gatland has set his stall out with 4 big players in the back line and maybe he feels that having more of a flyer type back will disrupt the tactics too much.

It's okay having a predicable gameplan as long as the opposition can`t stop it but it means your in trouble if the opposition can nullify it and you don't have an alternative.

There is a ball carrying 8 that could have been helpful, Dan Baker but he is currently injured. At blindside there is James Thomas who look like the real deal, he has been a handfull for the Dragons. At Hooker there is Kristian Dacey who is a great ball carrier and of course Ken Owens but only just came back last week. Gatland will never drop his pals though.
Navidi is also a much better ball carrier than Warburton.

VinceWLB wrote:Never thought i would say this but Phillips actually quickened the game up when he came on which is a testament of how poor Webb is. Never really rated him anyway.

To be fair, Phillips did

The Saint wrote:

Griff wrote:
I've said it before but I don't see the point of Halfpenny being there. Williams can defend and take high balls like him; Biggar's kick % is not far off, but without the range I guess. But 1/2p is nothing in attack. So if others can do the kicking and defending just as well then what qualities are making him undroppable? It's like being down to 14 men in attack with him on the pitch. Bit harsh maybe! But Williams brings so much more.

The qualities being he's one of our best back-three players. Does a lot of what North and Cuthbert can not do (kick, pass, catch, catch a high ball, tackle). I would like to see Williams at 15 for Wales a bit more often though, but that doesn't mean I want Halfpenny dropped to the bench.

Agree Saint. Plus with 1/2p, Amos and Williams in the team, they're all interchangeable. Think it would give us better options in attack than what our current back 3 provide.

It's always easier for a s/h coming off the bench to add pace to the game than the starting 9. We consistently see it. Webb didn't have his best game yesterday, box kicking was poor but it very much looked like part of the game plan for him to take his time at the base. Plus his pass is a million times better than Phillips's.

The Saint wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

The Saint wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

Where is the offence? You just seemed to be talking about those 2 being similar generally. Why would I be offended? I've never even met them

Yesterday they played the same: pedestrian and predictable. That's all too often the case with a Welsh 9 and why they are worked out, worn down and beaten in the second half.

That was the Welsh team last night, not our No.9. Stop looking for a scapegoat.

What the hell? Scapegoat? Last night wales offered nothing because the play at 9 was substandard, and unprofessional. That's called a REASON, but you can get on with blaming the referee and whinging in a generic manner about the coach, but it offers nothing.

Oh good lord. There has been no ref whingeing from the Welsh, which surprises me greatly actually, but credit where it's due. It was you and your english buddies that criticised every single decision.

And to call him 'unprofessional'. Turning up drunk is unprofessional. Swearing at the fans is unprofessional. Not playing very well is not unprofessional at all. I'm struggling to see your point with that one.

I think this clown (who is apparently a Wales fan I'm very ashamed to say) is best ignored. He posted some similar idiotic comments last night about Webb and is continuing in the same stream today. He also seems to have a problem with people disagreeing with him, which is pretty sad.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me; I have a problem with small minded and arrogant people who dismiss opinions they don't agree with as "idiotic" and call people they don't known "clowns".

Other posters are now backing up my analysis that Webb was too slow, so clam down, get over your disappointment and stop being so aggressive.

JDizzle wrote:It's always easier for a s/h coming off the bench to add pace to the game than the starting 9. We consistently see it. Webb didn't have his best game yesterday, box kicking was poor but it very much looked like part of the game plan for him to take his time at the base. Plus his pass is a million times better than Phillips's.

Yes, agree. There were times when the Welsh ball carriers had made it over the defensive line. Now we all know England like to keep narrow and the most successful teams have beaten them by outflanking it. So why was Webb so painfully glacial in distributing to the back line? Why did he offer so little? And given he took so long, why were his box kicks so universally average?

Webb can be quick at the breakdown, which is what makes me think he was under orders to keep it slow and pin England deep with box kicks. He just isn't a very good box kicker, although he had a lot of pressure on him for a few, and I will give him the one where North drove Brown back 15 metres. That was a great kick.

JDizzle wrote:Webb can be quick at the breakdown, which is what makes me think he was under orders to keep it slow and pin England deep with box kicks. He just isn't a very good box kicker, although he had a lot of pressure on him for a few, and I will give him the one where North drove Brown back 15 metres. That was a great kick.

Yes it was on that occasion, and unfortunately the match officials failed to soot that brown had taken the ball back into his 22 from the subsequent English clearing kick. Should've been a line out in the England 22 - at a crucial time in the match.

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

JDizzle wrote:It's always easier for a s/h coming off the bench to add pace to the game than the starting 9. We consistently see it. Webb didn't have his best game yesterday, box kicking was poor but it very much looked like part of the game plan for him to take his time at the base. Plus his pass is a million times better than Phillips's.

Yes, agree. There were times when the Welsh ball carriers had made it over the defensive line. Now we all know England like to keep narrow and the most successful teams have beaten them by outflanking it. So why was Webb so painfully glacial in distributing to the back line? Why did he offer so little? And given he took so long, why were his box kicks so universally average?

It's a hard one to pinpoint because he's been doing the opposite all season. I'm tempted to say it was the gameplan. But we know he was good in the AIs against good teams so can't be that as the gameplan was the same. Maybe just an off game (given current good form)? I hope it doesn't mean the return of Phillips. Webb, on current form (bar yesterday), would be good to see against Scotland as I feel they're not as good as England (but still better than usual) and he may have a bit more space to do some of the sniping he's been doing the rest of them season.

VinceWLB wrote:

B91212 wrote:I think the balance is not correct in the forwards. You have a good workmanlike pack but I feel you are maybe missing a carrier or two in the pack. We all know that your big carriers are in the backs but last night thought you needed to keep the England forwards more honest in defending the ruck area so Roberts etc were always running at opposition backs and not backs with one of England`s back 5 forwards able to double up. Brian Moore this week in his torygrapgh column said ideally you`d like a carrier in each row of the forwards and I kind of agree with that. Faletau carriers well but he`s more of a break into space carrier and not a tie defenders up carrier if that make`s sense. Maybe Lydiate has the physical attributes to do it but it doesn`t seem part of his game at the moment. I don`t see much of the Pro12 but is there maybe an ball carrying 8 worth trying with Faletau moving to 6? Or maybe a carrying second row alongside Wyn-Jones (who I thought was one of the better Welsh players last night).

Also agree with the sentiment of picking in form players like Liam Williams but Gatland has set his stall out with 4 big players in the back line and maybe he feels that having more of a flyer type back will disrupt the tactics too much.

It's okay having a predicable gameplan as long as the opposition can`t stop it but it means your in trouble if the opposition can nullify it and you don't have an alternative.

There is a ball carrying 8 that could have been helpful, Dan Baker but he is currently injured. At blindside there is James Thomas who look like the real deal, he has been a handfull for the Dragons. At Hooker there is Kristian Dacey who is a great ball carrier and of course Ken Owens but only just came back last week. Gatland will never drop his pals though.
Navidi is also a much better ball carrier than Warburton.

So there are options but all untried other than Owens. Like you say though it may take injuries before Gatland is prepared to change his favoured (and in my opinion slightly unbalanced) pack.

On a different note I felt last night that Jenkins was off the pace. Been a great servant but if he's not offering much in the loose then they may as well start James and have a stronger front row at the set piece.

Myself and Saint have said for sometime we would like to see a back 3 of Halfpenny Williams and Amos but I don't think we will see it happen unless injuries dictate.

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

The Saint wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Perhaps you shouldnt look for offence where there isn't any...

Where is the offence? You just seemed to be talking about those 2 being similar generally. Why would I be offended? I've never even met them

Yesterday they played the same: pedestrian and predictable. That's all too often the case with a Welsh 9 and why they are worked out, worn down and beaten in the second half.

That was the Welsh team last night, not our No.9. Stop looking for a scapegoat.

What the hell? Scapegoat? Last night wales offered nothing because the play at 9 was substandard, and unprofessional. That's called a REASON, but you can get on with blaming the referee and whinging in a generic manner about the coach, but it offers nothing.

Oh good lord. There has been no ref whingeing from the Welsh, which surprises me greatly actually, but credit where it's due. It was you and your english buddies that criticised every single decision.

And to call him 'unprofessional'. Turning up drunk is unprofessional. Swearing at the fans is unprofessional. Not playing very well is not unprofessional at all. I'm struggling to see your point with that one.

I think this clown (who is apparently a Wales fan I'm very ashamed to say) is best ignored. He posted some similar idiotic comments last night about Webb and is continuing in the same stream today. He also seems to have a problem with people disagreeing with him, which is pretty sad.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me; I have a problem with small minded and arrogant people who dismiss opinions they don't agree with as "idiotic" and call people they don't known "clowns".

Other posters are now backing up my analysis that Webb was too slow, so clam down, get over your disappointment and stop being so aggressive.

Last night and earlier on you made out that the Wales performance was down to Webb. That's idiotic to blame it on him. It was a poor team performance on the back of poor planning and some bad selections. Going by your replies to myself and Griff you certainly do have a problem with people disagreeing with you; that's kind of like being what you just said - small minded, arrogant and dismissive of opinions they don't agree with. Me or Griff certainly haven't done that, a clown certainly would though.

No, but other posters are saying aspects of Webb's game was poor. They aren't holding him responsible for the team performance like you did. So it seems we agree that Webb was poor but that is linked to the performance of the forwards and the game plan. Also if you want to be taken seriously when you're trying to tell people how to behave then it's a good idea to improve your spelling and grammar.