Could this be the most competitive Rugby World cup yet...?

by maestegmafia Tue 24 Mar 2015, 12:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

After a scintillating Six Nations and good performances in the autumn last year it is not just NZ SA and the ozzies who'll be in contention.

Ireland Wales and England have all shown they can play measured rugby at a high level as well as showing the ability to throw the ball around and score good tries.

Nick Mallett seems to think so.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/32027915

by Steve_rugby Fri 27 Mar 2015, 8:59 pm

Apologies, I forgot about France, England were the first side to do it though.

by Gwlad Sat 28 Mar 2015, 12:25 am

Steve_rugby wrote:Only one team has lost a group game and made the final.

Steve, you never let the facts get in the way of a definitive assertion do you.

by Taylorman Sat 28 Mar 2015, 12:41 am

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Steve_rugby wrote:Only one team has lost a group game and made the final.

that's not right, both England in 07 and France in 11 lost in the group stages (twice in France's case), and gone on to make the final. It's true that no team has lost in the group stages and gone on to win it, but the same was true in football (I think) until Spain won in in 2010 after losing their opening match to Switzerland.

Not really the sort of statistic I pay much attention to. I also disagree with Tman that the winner of Group A will be too cooked. If England beat Wales and Australia in R2 and 3 say, they then play Uruguay, followed by (probably) Scotland or Samoa, so that's one easy game and one which should be relatively straightforward (given Scotland's current state to any Scottish fans), in which to "recharge their batteries" so to speak, before the SF and Final.

Perhaps but lose to either or both and they'll have to field their best until they're safe. Scotland or Samoa will likely be out by then so will be looking for scalps. It's not an easy road, and that's before any 'important ' matches. Compare that to NZ first up vs Argie. Then Tonga, Tunisia, Georgia...

by Gwlad Sat 28 Mar 2015, 4:23 am

Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Yeah, I am sorry, but I just don't see Wales winning the World Cup.

You require a number of ingredients to do that, luck, form, decisions, bounce of the ball, consistency and smarts.

I just don't see Wales possessing the smarts or consistency to win a world cup.

If it is consistency that counts then England must be right up there then?

Not sure what 'smarts' you are referring to and would like to know why you think we don't have them

As for consistency, we beat SA last autumn, Ireland last month. Both games involved a Plan B and we defended equally as well as any team i have ever seen. We have won 6/9 since the Autumn. It is a definite improvement on our record under Gatland. The key is to win Pool A, from there anything is possible so that means beating England and Australia. I have no concerns about England at home we beat them as recently as 2012 there, or 2 games ago. Aus is the worry as IMO they are as smart as NZ when it counts.

should have known you wouldn't be able to explain what smarts you mean….i think you have the idea that somehow SH teams have the market cornered in this regard, certainly we showed last autumn that SA certainly don't.

by MMaaxx Sat 28 Mar 2015, 9:24 am

Gwlad....you came back to follow up on that comment? Pathetic....

It is one win...Second in the history of the game...and now Wales is such an unstoppable force that how dare anyone question their mental toughness? Maybe you have been reading walesonline too much? Ask how many times have Wales have played better against SA (or Aus, NZ) and still lost? Nelspruit comes to mind as does the RWC2011 opener. Especially the Nelspruit game....Wales should have walked that one and SA were super lucky. But the fact is that Wales were not smart enough to close out the win.

Take what you want from that last win but besides from playing a team that should not have even still been touring (fatigued, injury ravaged, no foreign based players etc......similar to 99....) nothing went SA's way that day from injuries to dodgy yellow cards. Lost count how many knock ons were made by le Roux alone and other unforced errors (Hougard tapping and then kicking out on the full for example) which is a clear sign of a unfocused team.

I guess SA have sent so many 50% teams playing at 50% to Wales and won that it was inevitable that a loss would eventually arrive. But the loss was due to mainly other factors rather than Wales playing well...hell even with SA having a serious nightmare they nearly won it not because they were playing well at all but because Wales were typically cracking mentally....i.e. They did not know how to close out the game, did not know how to play smart rugby, aka....RUGBY SMARTS.....reread the match thread and you will see that many Wales fans were writing about a hollow victory....SA lost it rather than Wales winning it etc.

The reality is that Wales have a tough group with Eng and Aus. If they finish second in it (which in itself is a massive achievement given Eng is at home and recently beat Wales easily and considering Wales' record against AUS maybe the smartest team around) if Wales is then to reach the final they will need to probably play SA, NZ and then Eng, Aus, Ireland or France to win the tournament. Agree with Biltong here.....ain't going to be Wales. If Wales were in France or Ireland's group then maybe....

by Luckless Pedestrian Sat 28 Mar 2015, 10:35 am

MMaaxx wrote:Gwlad....you came back to follow up on that comment? Pathetic....

It is one win...Second in the history of the game...and now Wales is such an unstoppable force that how dare anyone question their mental toughness? Maybe you have been reading walesonline too much?

by Gwlad Sat 28 Mar 2015, 3:44 pm

MMaaxx wrote:Gwlad....you came back to follow up on that comment? Pathetic....

It is one win...Second in the history of the game...and now Wales is such an unstoppable force that how dare anyone question their mental toughness? Maybe you have been reading walesonline too much? Ask how many times have Wales have played better against SA (or Aus, NZ) and still lost? Nelspruit comes to mind as does the RWC2011 opener. Especially the Nelspruit game....Wales should have walked that one and SA were super lucky. But the fact is that Wales were not smart enough to close out the win.

Take what you want from that last win but besides from playing a team that should not have even still been touring (fatigued, injury ravaged, no foreign based players etc......similar to 99....) nothing went SA's way that day from injuries to dodgy yellow cards. Lost count how many knock ons were made by le Roux alone and other unforced errors (Hougard tapping and then kicking out on the full for example) which is a clear sign of a unfocused team.

I guess SA have sent so many 50% teams playing at 50% to Wales and won that it was inevitable that a loss would eventually arrive. But the loss was due to mainly other factors rather than Wales playing well...hell even with SA having a serious nightmare they nearly won it not because they were playing well at all but because Wales were typically cracking mentally....i.e. They did not know how to close out the game, did not know how to play smart rugby, aka....RUGBY SMARTS.....reread the match thread and you will see that many Wales fans were writing about a hollow victory....SA lost it rather than Wales winning it etc.

The reality is that Wales have a tough group with Eng and Aus. If they finish second in it (which in itself is a massive achievement given Eng is at home and recently beat Wales easily and considering Wales' record against AUS maybe the smartest team around) if Wales is then to reach the final they will need to probably play SA, NZ and then Eng, Aus, Ireland or France to win the tournament. Agree with Biltong here.....ain't going to be Wales. If Wales were in France or Ireland's group then maybe....

You're obviously really rattled. Bit like SA last autumn when Lee destroyed their scrum. The whole of SA rugb his in disarray, i predict the Samoans will run you close come the autumn and you'll get knocked out in the 1/4s. Now that'll be a Walesonline headline to savor! Yahoo

by The Saint Sat 28 Mar 2015, 6:01 pm

Some people getting a bit wound up that Wales will win the world cup in here...... Smile

And mmaxx, I see you're using that fatigue excuse again. Why is it when SA lose a game this excuse always comes up? Do you South Africans even know that NZ and Aus play more games than you... And the NH teams play more club rugby... I don't see them complaining about fatigue, ever.

by MMaaxx Sat 28 Mar 2015, 6:45 pm

Not worried about Wales or anti Wales at all. Just thought the tone of the precious comment to mine was too much. Also with Wales' history why wouldn't any person who knows a thing about rugby question their rugby smarts? Most of their fans usually do following all the narrow losses particularly to SA and Aus, right? I honestly think they will not win the RWC. Just my opinion.

Sky Sports' panel before 6N when analysing the teams pre tournament marked the Wales win vs the Boks in Nov down as fatigue and said that besides giving Wales a bit of a mental lift, little else can be read into the result. Even so, with most of the team out and those left on their last legs I would still expect to beat Wales. SA played so so poorly and if you had watched SA a few weeks before in the 4N it was clear that there was no intensity or energy come November. Wales didn't play well either, I've seen them play much better against SA and lose when they deserved a win. Luckily the sight England's white shirts seem to give them a boost.

No way Aus play more games than SA where we have domestic competitions that they just do not have. Boks go from S15 to Tests to 4N to Currie Cup to November tests. With massive travel to and from Aus, NZ, Argentina and probably play in the most physical domestic league around. NZ centrally contracted All Blacks are also rested and rotated. Boks do not have that luxury unfortunately.

Taking of excuses....let's not start listing NH excuses come SH April tours and WC time....but who cares every team and every fan has and uses them and usually there is an element of truth in them too.

by The Saint Sat 28 Mar 2015, 7:24 pm

The win over SA gave us a breath of relief, but it's not really been discussed since the day it happened. If we had won in Nelspruit it would still be talked about, that was a tough one to take. I don't think much can be read into the autumn win if I'm honest, both teams were cr*p and played little rugby.

Australia play 5 games on tour and as well as the rugby championship, they have an extra bledisloe match. On their home game tour they sometimes play more than 3 games as well.

by **Biltong** Sat 28 Mar 2015, 8:49 pm

Gwlad wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Yeah, I am sorry, but I just don't see Wales winning the World Cup.

You require a number of ingredients to do that, luck, form, decisions, bounce of the ball, consistency and smarts.

I just don't see Wales possessing the smarts or consistency to win a world cup.

If it is consistency that counts then England must be right up there then?

Not sure what 'smarts' you are referring to and would like to know why you think we don't have them

As for consistency, we beat SA last autumn, Ireland last month. Both games involved a Plan B and we defended equally as well as any team i have ever seen. We have won 6/9 since the Autumn. It is a definite improvement on our record under Gatland. The key is to win Pool A, from there anything is possible so that means beating England and Australia. I have no concerns about England at home we beat them as recently as 2012 there, or 2 games ago. Aus is the worry as IMO they are as smart as NZ when it counts.

should have known you wouldn't be able to explain what smarts you mean….i think you have the idea that somehow SH teams have the market cornered in this regard, certainly we showed last autumn that SA certainly don't.

I was going to ignore your poor attempt at debate, but thought I would indulge you. Wales has never won 7 matches in a row in a world cup, never mind beating New Zealand in 50 + years. You record under Gatland stands at something like 10% wins against the SH big three, so what makes you think you can beat them (at least two of them ) in a world cup.

SA, Australia and New Zealand isn't going to the RWC at the end of their season, they are going there fully prepared.

As for their smarts, Wales is the most predictable team in the Six Nations. Have shown no adaptability since 2008 or anything new.

by **Notch** Sat 28 Mar 2015, 9:44 pm

Whoever wins Pool A will have a great chance of making the Final if the other pools go by the form book. If those games do go as expected and there are no big upsets, Wales or England need to beat Australia and their other rival in the pool stages, which is certainly possible, then they can look forward to avoiding South Africa and New Zealand until the Final. Same for whichever of Ireland or France wins their pool, assuming NZ and SA win all their pool games, earliest they can meet one of the big three SH teams is maybe Australia in the semi-finals.

The opportunity for a previously unheralded NH team to make a bid for the Cup is absolutely there. You could have England/Wales vs Scotland playing the winner of Ireland vs Argentina and then it's down to a one-off game for the winner of that game... The fact it's unpredictable knockout rugby favours teams outside the big three. France nearly won the thing in similar circumstance in NZ, and they were awful before and after the tournament.

I don't think England, Ireland or Wales will be champions but I do think they are all realistic contenders with the way the draw is. I think New Zealand are favourites, South Africa just behind them and then you have Australia, England, Wales, Ireland on a fairly even footing (at least one of those four going home early of course) and then Argentina and France as the wildcards. Pretty open tournament in prospect if you ask me. With the two favourites set for a collision in one of the semi-finals, don't write off the NH just yet... at least three sides from this part of the world in with a great chance of making the Final.

by Gooseberry Sat 28 Mar 2015, 9:52 pm

This is the thing though, is geting a free pass to the final to wait to be humped by New zelaand really wide open or just flattering to decieve?
Hell England nearly won the world cup in in 2007, and France last time around, but nether could have been described as good teams or even second best n the tournament by anyone rational.

That a second rate team could make the final is not unusual. One winning it would be.

by **Notch** Sat 28 Mar 2015, 10:07 pm

Thats the beauty of the World Cup though. It's encourages results like this. Whilst the best team in the last two World Cups prevailed and one of those two teams is likely to prevail again, in a Cup competition there's just always that outside chance...

by Gwlad Sun 29 Mar 2015, 12:27 am

Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Yeah, I am sorry, but I just don't see Wales winning the World Cup.

You require a number of ingredients to do that, luck, form, decisions, bounce of the ball, consistency and smarts.

I just don't see Wales possessing the smarts or consistency to win a world cup.

If it is consistency that counts then England must be right up there then?

Not sure what 'smarts' you are referring to and would like to know why you think we don't have them

As for consistency, we beat SA last autumn, Ireland last month. Both games involved a Plan B and we defended equally as well as any team i have ever seen. We have won 6/9 since the Autumn. It is a definite improvement on our record under Gatland. The key is to win Pool A, from there anything is possible so that means beating England and Australia. I have no concerns about England at home we beat them as recently as 2012 there, or 2 games ago. Aus is the worry as IMO they are as smart as NZ when it counts.

should have known you wouldn't be able to explain what smarts you mean….i think you have the idea that somehow SH teams have the market cornered in this regard, certainly we showed last autumn that SA certainly don't.

I was going to ignore your poor attempt at debate, but thought I would indulge you. Wales has never won 7 matches in a row in a world cup, never mind beating New Zealand in 50 + years. You record under Gatland stands at something like 10% wins against the SH big three, so what makes you think you can beat them (at least two of them ) in a world cup.

SA, Australia and New Zealand isn't going to the RWC at the end of their season, they are going there fully prepared.

As for their smarts, Wales is the most predictable team in the Six Nations. Have shown no adaptability since 2008 or anything new.

Um , yes they did, and hence why you lost last autumn. Instead of carrying into the 10/12 as expected, Roberts offloaded constantly and fed the wide channels. Simple and any smart team would have known how to defend it by rushing up, predictably, not SA.

by Cowshot Sun 29 Mar 2015, 10:41 am

England's strength in depth will be a bonus in that pool - we quite genuinely do have two packs of international quality (maybe 3) and although the back line isn't settled we've the players for perhaps two pretty darn good ones. Plus a few back ups in some positions. It doesn't mean we are sure to beat Aus and Wales, of course, but if we do get out of the Pool we ought to be able to produce a decent side from the survivors.

by Cyril Sun 29 Mar 2015, 3:14 pm

Cowshot wrote:England's strength in depth will be a bonus in that pool - we quite genuinely do have two packs of international quality (maybe 3) and although the back line isn't settled we've the players for perhaps two pretty darn good ones. Plus a few back ups in some positions. It doesn't mean we are sure to beat Aus and Wales, of course, but if we do get out of the Pool we ought to be able to produce a decent side from the survivors.

England's fixture schedule also helps them (advantage of hosting) where our last big game is on 3rd Oct (Aus) whereas Wales/Aus play each other in the last pool game (only a week from the quarters). England will have two weeks from the Aus game to the quarters (with the last game vs Uruguay in the middle) and an opportunity to rest up players and sort out any niggly injuries.

That's not saying that points requirements etc might not sway selection decisions but I think the end of the pool stage favours England in terms of being more rested for the quarter-finals (assuming they qualify).

by **Biltong** Sun 29 Mar 2015, 5:24 pm

Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Yeah, I am sorry, but I just don't see Wales winning the World Cup.

You require a number of ingredients to do that, luck, form, decisions, bounce of the ball, consistency and smarts.

I just don't see Wales possessing the smarts or consistency to win a world cup.

If it is consistency that counts then England must be right up there then?

Not sure what 'smarts' you are referring to and would like to know why you think we don't have them

As for consistency, we beat SA last autumn, Ireland last month. Both games involved a Plan B and we defended equally as well as any team i have ever seen. We have won 6/9 since the Autumn. It is a definite improvement on our record under Gatland. The key is to win Pool A, from there anything is possible so that means beating England and Australia. I have no concerns about England at home we beat them as recently as 2012 there, or 2 games ago. Aus is the worry as IMO they are as smart as NZ when it counts.

should have known you wouldn't be able to explain what smarts you mean….i think you have the idea that somehow SH teams have the market cornered in this regard, certainly we showed last autumn that SA certainly don't.

I was going to ignore your poor attempt at debate, but thought I would indulge you. Wales has never won 7 matches in a row in a world cup, never mind beating New Zealand in 50 + years. You record under Gatland stands at something like 10% wins against the SH big three, so what makes you think you can beat them (at least two of them ) in a world cup.

SA, Australia and New Zealand isn't going to the RWC at the end of their season, they are going there fully prepared.

As for their smarts, Wales is the most predictable team in the Six Nations. Have shown no adaptability since 2008 or anything new.

Um , yes they did, and hence why you lost last autumn. Instead of carrying into the 10/12 as expected, Roberts offloaded constantly and fed the wide channels. Simple and any smart team would have known how to defend it by rushing up, predictably, not SA.

And how many tries did that bring you?

by lostinwales Sun 29 Mar 2015, 9:25 pm

Didn't you know? After smashing SA in the autumn internationals and then achieving a mighty 3rd place in the 6N Wales are set for RWC success.

by Steffan Sun 29 Mar 2015, 9:28 pm

Wales are gonna win the RWC if New Zealand don't

by emack2 Sun 29 Mar 2015, 11:08 pm

The 4Ns/6Ns results will have little or no effect on the RWC the style will revert to
the stereotype formula.
No risks,defence,penalty/drop goals ,referees decisions,etc.there will be shock results
too.Argentina,Japan,Fiji,Tonga,Samoa,Italy are all capable of odd results versus the
top 8 sides.
Injuries will effect teams and squads depth will be most important of all,the last 3
years.IF you accept that in each case the 6NS were a 3 way tie NOT predicated on
how many points you can put on the weakest sides.
You will see there is NOTHING between England,Wales.Ireland,France may be weakest
but in RWCs so unpredictable.
THE 3 SH sides won`t be weakened by a long 4NS finishing 14 days before kick off as
2011.
NZ may well have peaked in 2013 and have major problems in some areas but
still have a long way further to fall.
Aus are always up for RWCS, and all the travellers[or most] have given up there pensions.
Returned to the fold for RWC in all SH sides.
Most of the finals have been won by goalkicks and controversial refs decisions,but to
claim for example.Englands win was unexpected in 2003 defies logic.14 straight wins
v SH sides,4 matches lost 2000-3,JW averaging 15 points a game were clearly favourites.

by Steve_rugby Sun 29 Mar 2015, 11:26 pm

Steffan wrote:Wales are gonna win the RWC if New Zealand don't

by Marshes Sun 29 Mar 2015, 11:36 pm

It's between England, Ireland, SA, and NZ for me. I can't see Australia getting out of that group in their current malaise, SA to beat Wales, England probably with home advantage beat Ireland in one semi, NZ to beat SA in the other, NZ to win it the final over valiant English effort.

by Steffan Mon 30 Mar 2015, 3:33 pm

lostinwales wrote:Didn't you know? After smashing SA in the autumn internationals and then achieving a mighty 3rd place in the 6N Wales are set for RWC success.

No one said we smashed South Africa in the AI

As for 3rd place...we finished 3rd purely based on points difference. We lost no more games than England or Ireland

The England loss hurt I can't deny that. But hopefully that second half will be the only slur on our record this year and we seek RWC glory

by maestegmafia Mon 30 Mar 2015, 6:14 pm

Steffan wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Didn't you know? After smashing SA in the autumn internationals and then achieving a mighty 3rd place in the 6N Wales are set for RWC success.
No one said we smashed South Africa in the AI

As for 3rd place...we finished 3rd purely based on points difference. We lost no more games than England or Ireland

The England loss hurt I can't deny that. But hopefully that second half will be the only slur on our record this year and we seek RWC glory

I think that pathetic attempt of a second half galvanised the squad a lot more.

I was a good lesson learned for wales

by Icu Tue 31 Mar 2015, 1:21 am

Steffan wrote:Wales are gonna win the RWC if New Zealand don't

yeh,nah. The Wallabies have won every World Cup on UK soil and should do so again. They'll meet the AB's in the final and will go on to win, giving Australia a double-double - both the cricket WC and RWC in the same year, just as in 1999. Wink

Actually, it could be considered a triple-double as Aust. held the CWC in 1987 and the RWC in 1991, before losing the CWC in 1992. I think NZ would declare war on us if we were to pip them for the RWC as well as the CWC. steam

by Gwlad Tue 31 Mar 2015, 1:35 am

Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Yeah, I am sorry, but I just don't see Wales winning the World Cup.

You require a number of ingredients to do that, luck, form, decisions, bounce of the ball, consistency and smarts.

I just don't see Wales possessing the smarts or consistency to win a world cup.

If it is consistency that counts then England must be right up there then?

Not sure what 'smarts' you are referring to and would like to know why you think we don't have them

As for consistency, we beat SA last autumn, Ireland last month. Both games involved a Plan B and we defended equally as well as any team i have ever seen. We have won 6/9 since the Autumn. It is a definite improvement on our record under Gatland. The key is to win Pool A, from there anything is possible so that means beating England and Australia. I have no concerns about England at home we beat them as recently as 2012 there, or 2 games ago. Aus is the worry as IMO they are as smart as NZ when it counts.

should have known you wouldn't be able to explain what smarts you mean….i think you have the idea that somehow SH teams have the market cornered in this regard, certainly we showed last autumn that SA certainly don't.

I was going to ignore your poor attempt at debate, but thought I would indulge you. Wales has never won 7 matches in a row in a world cup, never mind beating New Zealand in 50 + years. You record under Gatland stands at something like 10% wins against the SH big three, so what makes you think you can beat them (at least two of them ) in a world cup.

SA, Australia and New Zealand isn't going to the RWC at the end of their season, they are going there fully prepared.

As for their smarts, Wales is the most predictable team in the Six Nations. Have shown no adaptability since 2008 or anything new.

Um , yes they did, and hence why you lost last autumn. Instead of carrying into the 10/12 as expected, Roberts offloaded constantly and fed the wide channels. Simple and any smart team would have known how to defend it by rushing up, predictably, not SA.

And how many tries did that bring you?

who cares, the result is all that matters. We got the ball wide, got behind the mainline and kicked our pens.

It was SA who were predicable in their assumption we would attack narrow and we didn't. So much for your predictable argument then, what IS predictable is that people think we are predictable in attack.
Yes we have a style and no it doesn't always work, but we have shown we are a lot more than the usual stereotypical Warrenball detractor argument which gets criticized because of its success

by **Biltong** Tue 31 Mar 2015, 7:56 am

Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Yeah, I am sorry, but I just don't see Wales winning the World Cup.

You require a number of ingredients to do that, luck, form, decisions, bounce of the ball, consistency and smarts.

I just don't see Wales possessing the smarts or consistency to win a world cup.

If it is consistency that counts then England must be right up there then?

Not sure what 'smarts' you are referring to and would like to know why you think we don't have them

As for consistency, we beat SA last autumn, Ireland last month. Both games involved a Plan B and we defended equally as well as any team i have ever seen. We have won 6/9 since the Autumn. It is a definite improvement on our record under Gatland. The key is to win Pool A, from there anything is possible so that means beating England and Australia. I have no concerns about England at home we beat them as recently as 2012 there, or 2 games ago. Aus is the worry as IMO they are as smart as NZ when it counts.

should have known you wouldn't be able to explain what smarts you mean….i think you have the idea that somehow SH teams have the market cornered in this regard, certainly we showed last autumn that SA certainly don't.

I was going to ignore your poor attempt at debate, but thought I would indulge you. Wales has never won 7 matches in a row in a world cup, never mind beating New Zealand in 50 + years. You record under Gatland stands at something like 10% wins against the SH big three, so what makes you think you can beat them (at least two of them ) in a world cup.

SA, Australia and New Zealand isn't going to the RWC at the end of their season, they are going there fully prepared.

As for their smarts, Wales is the most predictable team in the Six Nations. Have shown no adaptability since 2008 or anything new.

Um , yes they did, and hence why you lost last autumn. Instead of carrying into the 10/12 as expected, Roberts offloaded constantly and fed the wide channels. Simple and any smart team would have known how to defend it by rushing up, predictably, not SA.

And how many tries did that bring you?

who cares, the result is all that matters. We got the ball wide, got behind the mainline and kicked our pens.

It was SA who were predicable in their assumption we would attack narrow and we didn't. So much for your predictable argument then, what IS predictable is that people think we are predictable in attack.
Yes we have a style and no it doesn't always work, but we have shown we are a lot more than the usual stereotypical Warrenball detractor argument which gets criticized because of its success

Your reasoning makes for compelling debate. It's just, nah, makes little sense in debating.

You bring forth the fact that the Welsh attack is not predictable, goes wide, and yet brings no tries, then do not care that it brings no tries and are satisfied with kicking penalties. OK then

by Cyril Tue 31 Mar 2015, 10:15 am

maestegmafia wrote:
Steffan wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Didn't you know? After smashing SA in the autumn internationals and then achieving a mighty 3rd place in the 6N Wales are set for RWC success.
No one said we smashed South Africa in the AI

As for 3rd place...we finished 3rd purely based on points difference. We lost no more games than England or Ireland

The England loss hurt I can't deny that. But hopefully that second half will be the only slur on our record this year and we seek RWC glory

I think that pathetic attempt of a second half galvanised the squad a lot more.
I was a good lesson learned for wales

I saw it more as being outplayed by England. Still refusing to give any credit to the winning side I see. Tut tut.

by The Saint Tue 31 Mar 2015, 10:28 am

Congrats on finishing 2nd. You got what you were aiming for thumbsup

by No 7&1/2 Tue 31 Mar 2015, 10:30 am

Congrats on 3rd, beyond your expectations.

by lostinwales Tue 31 Mar 2015, 10:53 am

For Wales on the plus side they will be in great shape, and they seem to have resolved a couple of selection issues, but they still haven't actually managed to beat Australia for ages despite being close a fair few times, and have scored a grand total of one try (yes well taken but started with Wales scrum going backwards quickly) in almost 3 hours of game time against England.

Its great how you can make stats say almost anything you want isnt it?

by The Saint Tue 31 Mar 2015, 11:02 am

Reminds me of the stats a couple years back. Zero tries in three games against Wales topped off with a 30-3 drubbing, yet Englanders still couldn't admit defeat, they had to go blaming the ref. Glad my fellow Wales fans don't behave like that.

by Jimpy Tue 31 Mar 2015, 11:31 am

The Saint wrote:Reminds me of the stats a couple years back. Zero tries in three games against Wales topped off with a 30-3 drubbing, yet Englanders still couldn't admit defeat, they had to go blaming the ref. Glad my fellow Wales fans don't behave like that.

You've just redefined irony....

picard

by TJ Tue 31 Mar 2015, 11:36 am

There will be competitive matchers but overall? Nope. same as ever NZ are far and away the best team. SA and England might push them. There will be no upsets in the top 8 teams.

by Gooseberry Tue 31 Mar 2015, 2:53 pm

Steffan wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Didn't you know? After smashing SA in the autumn internationals and then achieving a mighty 3rd place in the 6N Wales are set for RWC success.
No one said we smashed South Africa in the AI

As for 3rd place...we finished 3rd purely based on points difference. We lost no more games than England or Ireland

True and they only didnt win the last world cup on "games lost" which is a bit of a technicality

by TJ Tue 31 Mar 2015, 3:02 pm

In order to do well ie semis or better in the WC you need a settled coaching team, a settled team selection, streength in depth ie a whole second team who can come in with no drop in quality and a couple of real world class players in key po9sitions. Wales simply do not have the depth to do well at the WC. Also weak in a couple of key areas.

by Gooseberry Tue 31 Mar 2015, 3:33 pm

TJ wrote:In order to do well ie semis or better in the WC you need a settled coaching team, a settled team selection, streength in depth ie a whole second team who can come in with no drop in quality and a couple of real world class players in key po9sitions. Wales simply do not have the depth to do well at the WC. Also weak in a couple of key areas.

England 2007, France 2011. chin

Which of those did Wales have last time that they wont have this time/ They are more settled and more experienced now than they were going into that world cup, and have less liability hot heads. Did they have that much depth last time around? Its only really tighthead where they are lacking a strong bench player.

They were in a tough group last time with a third team who played well enough to have qualified from other pools, ad only missed out on the final by a gnats whisker.

I wouldnt put them in the top 3 in the world but its wrong to rule out second rate teams from making the finals, it happens more often than not because of the way the tournament is structured.

The big issue though fr those in Pool A is that finishing second in itself is no easy task, and then if you do you are likely to face New Zealand in the quarters and SA in the semis which is pretty much a death sentence. So winning the pool is pretty much a must do for making the final, then you (possibly) "only" have to get past Ireland to reach the final.

Given that SA and NZ are likely winners of their groups and the way the draw is only one will make the final. So the door is open for someone else, but Ireland have a much easier route there than Wales or England do. They are also the most successful of those sides in recent months.

On that basis they are a better bet for the final than Wales are, but i woudlnt rule out the Welsh or Englandish either. Or Australia. Itll probably be France though just to confound everyone (again)

I guess the point is reaching the final is pretty open, theres quite a few teams capable of doing it especially with the best two sides likely meeting in the semis. The winner though is very much likely to be NZ or SA

by Gwlad Tue 31 Mar 2015, 7:23 pm

Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Yeah, I am sorry, but I just don't see Wales winning the World Cup.

You require a number of ingredients to do that, luck, form, decisions, bounce of the ball, consistency and smarts.

I just don't see Wales possessing the smarts or consistency to win a world cup.

If it is consistency that counts then England must be right up there then?

Not sure what 'smarts' you are referring to and would like to know why you think we don't have them

As for consistency, we beat SA last autumn, Ireland last month. Both games involved a Plan B and we defended equally as well as any team i have ever seen. We have won 6/9 since the Autumn. It is a definite improvement on our record under Gatland. The key is to win Pool A, from there anything is possible so that means beating England and Australia. I have no concerns about England at home we beat them as recently as 2012 there, or 2 games ago. Aus is the worry as IMO they are as smart as NZ when it counts.

should have known you wouldn't be able to explain what smarts you mean….i think you have the idea that somehow SH teams have the market cornered in this regard, certainly we showed last autumn that SA certainly don't.

I was going to ignore your poor attempt at debate, but thought I would indulge you. Wales has never won 7 matches in a row in a world cup, never mind beating New Zealand in 50 + years. You record under Gatland stands at something like 10% wins against the SH big three, so what makes you think you can beat them (at least two of them ) in a world cup.

SA, Australia and New Zealand isn't going to the RWC at the end of their season, they are going there fully prepared.

As for their smarts, Wales is the most predictable team in the Six Nations. Have shown no adaptability since 2008 or anything new.

Um , yes they did, and hence why you lost last autumn. Instead of carrying into the 10/12 as expected, Roberts offloaded constantly and fed the wide channels. Simple and any smart team would have known how to defend it by rushing up, predictably, not SA.

And how many tries did that bring you?

who cares, the result is all that matters. We got the ball wide, got behind the mainline and kicked our pens.

It was SA who were predicable in their assumption we would attack narrow and we didn't. So much for your predictable argument then, what IS predictable is that people think we are predictable in attack.
Yes we have a style and no it doesn't always work, but we have shown we are a lot more than the usual stereotypical Warrenball detractor argument which gets criticized because of its success

Your reasoning makes for compelling debate. It's just, nah, makes little sense in debating.

You bring forth the fact that the Welsh attack is not predictable, goes wide, and yet brings no tries, then do not care that it brings no tries and are satisfied with kicking penalties. OK then

Predictable response biltong. Fact is you can't debate on the predictability point and have decided to move the goalposts to a discussion about our ineffective wide attack, which won us the game. Rugby is a game where points can be scored in 4 ways.
This exchange started because you said Wales were predictable, it was an illustration of the assumption SA took into the match last autumn, and they lost as a result. If Wales don't score tries and win matches i could care less.

by **Biltong** Tue 31 Mar 2015, 7:34 pm

Gwlad, Wales is predictable, their game plan have not changed and they have been using the same players most of the time, this is my opinion and how I see it. You brought in the wide gameplan that supposedly won you the game.

Please, it was a penalty shootout and a dire poor performance by both teams. If you see anything else in that win you are living in a bubble and cannot take criticism

by TJ Tue 31 Mar 2015, 7:49 pm

Gooseberry - its the depth that Wales do not have. You need at least two folk in every position ready to come in with no drop in quality. All teams will get injuries, its the quality of replacements that count. That and a couple of world class plaers in cruicial positions

by Gwlad Tue 31 Mar 2015, 9:40 pm

Biltong wrote:Gwlad, Wales is predictable, their game plan have not changed and they have been using the same players most of the time, this is my opinion and how I see it. You brought in the wide gameplan that supposedly won you the game.

Please, it was a penalty shootout and a dire poor performance by both teams. If you see anything else in that win you are living in a bubble and cannot take criticism

Again, a predictable response. You moved the debate onto the creativity of our attack because you have no point to make on the predictability point you made about Wales. You, and no doubt the SA team predicted a certain style from Wales and were met by another. That's a fact and that is what is at issue. So what we didn't score tries, pen shoot out it may have been but we won it. Had we won scoring tries it wouldn't have mattered. And Wales weren't dire at all, SA were and that is what make the game a dirge.

What's clear is you can't take being wrong.

by The Saint Tue 31 Mar 2015, 10:07 pm

We lack depth at prop (both sides of the scrum) and at fly-half, where behind Biggar we have probably nothing (discounting Priestland as he's useless). We look okay everywhere else. If one of Lydiate, Warbs or Faletau isn't available though, the combination is the concern. Navidi and Baker to come in hopefully (and maybe James Thomas as an outside bet Smile

). I don't think anyone in world rugby can put out a 2nd team without a drop in performance, so don't know why that statement is being churned out when we're only talking about Wales.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 31 Mar 2015, 10:19 pm

I agree that the Welsh areas of weakness in terms of depth are at prop most certainly, and perhaps fly half, although I've always rated James Hook and I reckon Patchell will turn out well.

I don't see the Welsh back row as an issue. Baker covers Faletau nicely, and Warburton would for my money cover Lydiate at 6, although Coombs could work well there as could McCusker or Shingler - depends what you're looking for. Wales are nicely off at 7, with Tipuric and James Davies behind Warburton. James Davies was magnificent in defeat for the Scarlets against Edinburgh at the weekend.

by The Saint Tue 31 Mar 2015, 10:29 pm

Most of those aren't very experienced yet so we don't know how they'll turn out. McCusker and Shingler are just not good enough. Navidi is ahead of both Tipruic and Davies for me, and for a lot others. It doesn't look like he'll get a look-in though. Baker will be in the RWC squad.

by **Biltong** Tue 31 Mar 2015, 10:49 pm

Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Gwlad, Wales is predictable, their game plan have not changed and they have been using the same players most of the time, this is my opinion and how I see it. You brought in the wide gameplan that supposedly won you the game.

Please, it was a penalty shootout and a dire poor performance by both teams. If you see anything else in that win you are living in a bubble and cannot take criticism

Again, a predictable response. You moved the debate onto the creativity of our attack because you have no point to make on the predictability point you made about Wales. You, and no doubt the SA team predicted a certain style from Wales and were met by another. That's a fact and that is what is at issue. So what we didn't score tries, pen shoot out it may have been but we won it. Had we won scoring tries it wouldn't have mattered. And Wales weren't dire at all, SA were and that is what make the game a dirge.

What's clear is you can't take being wrong.

I brought up one issue, Wales is predictable, track back and see who made the other assertions. Wink

by fa0019 Wed 01 Apr 2015, 12:31 pm

Competitive perhaps but we won't see a new winner and its even unlikely we'll see a first time finalist.

3 of the 4 SF places will go to teams who have won the trophy and I think both final places will go to previous winners too.

The only movement forward will probably be Ireland taking their first ever RWC SF spot and perhaps Samoa beating Scotland for a QF berth.

by maestegmafia Sat 11 Apr 2015, 5:47 pm

Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Gwlad, Wales is predictable, their game plan have not changed and they have been using the same players most of the time, this is my opinion and how I see it. You brought in the wide gameplan that supposedly won you the game.

Please, it was a penalty shootout and a dire poor performance by both teams. If you see anything else in that win you are living in a bubble and cannot take criticism

Again, a predictable response. You moved the debate onto the creativity of our attack because you have no point to make on the predictability point you made about Wales. You, and no doubt the SA team predicted a certain style from Wales and were met by another. That's a fact and that is what is at issue. So what we didn't score tries, pen shoot out it may have been but we won it. Had we won scoring tries it wouldn't have mattered. And Wales weren't dire at all, SA were and that is what make the game a dirge.

What's clear is you can't take being wrong.

I brought up one issue, Wales is predictable, track back and see who made the other assertions.

Didn't we surprise you at the last RWC bill?

I thought you didn't rate us, until we were one dodgy call away from winning...!

by Gwlad Sat 11 Apr 2015, 6:11 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Biltong wrote:Gwlad, Wales is predictable, their game plan have not changed and they have been using the same players most of the time, this is my opinion and how I see it. You brought in the wide gameplan that supposedly won you the game.

Please, it was a penalty shootout and a dire poor performance by both teams. If you see anything else in that win you are living in a bubble and cannot take criticism

Again, a predictable response. You moved the debate onto the creativity of our attack because you have no point to make on the predictability point you made about Wales. You, and no doubt the SA team predicted a certain style from Wales and were met by another. That's a fact and that is what is at issue. So what we didn't score tries, pen shoot out it may have been but we won it. Had we won scoring tries it wouldn't have mattered. And Wales weren't dire at all, SA were and that is what make the game a dirge.

What's clear is you can't take being wrong.

I brought up one issue, Wales is predictable, track back and see who made the other assertions.

Didn't we surprise you at the last RWC bill?

I thought you didn't rate us, until we were one dodgy call away from winning...!

Sadly referees freezes cost Wales that day. But we must ALWAYS remember that referee freezes affect SA much more than Wales.

by **Biltong** Sat 11 Apr 2015, 8:56 pm

How many times have Wales come close to beating the Boks and and failed?

by Sponsored content