Australia vs Wales RWC Pool A 10th October

First topic message reminder :

  
AUSTRALIA v WALES
10 October 2015
KO: 16:45
Twickenham, London

Live on [tbc]

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Touch judges: Jérôme Garcès (France) & Stuart Berry (South Africa)
Television match official: Shaun Veldsman (South Africa)

A. Head to Head

38 Played 38
27 Won 10
1 Drawn 1
10 Lost 27
897 Points 590

B. Recent Form

8 November 2014
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
28 – 33 Australia

30 November 2013
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
26 – 30 Australia

1 December 2012
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
12 – 14 Australia

23 June 2012
Sydney Football Stadium, Sydney
20 – 19 Australia

16 June 2012
Etihad Stadium, Melbourne
25 – 23 Australia

9 June 2012
Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane
27 – 19 Australia

3 December 2011
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
18 – 24 Australia

21 October 2011
Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand
21 – 18 Australia

TEAMS:

AUSTRALIA

I Folau; A Ashley-Cooper, T Kuridrani, M Giteau, D Mitchell; B Foley, W Genia; S Sio, S Moore, S Kepu; K Douglas, D Mumm; S Fardy, S McMahon, D Pocock.

Replacements: T Polota-Nau, J Slipper, G Holmes, R Simmons, B MCCalman, N Phipps, M Toomua, K Beale.

WALES

G Anscombe; A Cuthbert, G North, J Roberts, L Williams; D Biggar, G Davies; P James, S Baldwin, S Lee; L Charteris, AW Jones; S Warburton, J Tipuric, T Faletau.

Replacements: K Owens, A Jarvis, T Francis, J Ball, R Moriarty, Ll Williams, R Priestland, J Hook.

*************
The pool decider.

Damn those boys in the Canary yellow shirts look good, really good. Going through top of the pool Wales would be likely to meet Japan or Scotland...! Go through second and we meet a refuvinated Bok side.

I cant believe just how far Cuthbert has regressed, he was a decent player when he arrived on the scene but now he simply is very poor. I could not believe the lack of commitment from him when the Aussies kicked ahead, he looked at the bouncing ball instead of diving on it allowing the Aussies to get possession back.
It must also have a very negative effect on the team as well who are putting in 100% to watch him shy away from tackles and contact.

Good luck to the Welsh next week, I am not so convinced that SA will be that much stronger than Wales. Wales are not out of this RWC.

majesticimperialman wrote:Welsh-Wizard.

I grant you that Wales have done better than England is this World cup...But i find it hard to except that Wales could not/did not score a try when Australia was down to thirteen men.

I thought they would of taken at least 3 points and get a second chance of a try after the kick off.

But they did not do that and Australia held on for the win. Good luck against SA,

Did better than you in the last WC too

Welsh-Wizzard wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Welsh-Wizard.

I grant you that Wales have done better than England is this World cup...But i find it hard to except that Wales could not/did not score a try when Australia was down to thirteen men.

I thought they would of taken at least 3 points and get a second chance of a try after the kick off.

But they did not do that and Australia held on for the win. Good luck against SA,

Did better than you in the last WC too

What as the last world cup go too do with this world cup?  

You Welsh keep telling us English to stop living in the past. Maybe you should do the same.

Morning all!

Haven't read all of the comments and can't really be bothered if truth be told. So apologies if this has been covered:

I'm not as deflated as I thought I'd be. After watching Aus v England I thought there was a good chance we'd get stuffed. That we weren't sort of pleases me, although I don't really want to be happy with a loss. It was a strange one. I'd say it was much less intense than the England game, much less physical that the Fiji game. We just couldn't find that next gear. We are poor in attack these days it would seem, but then again we were playing arguably the top SH team so opportunities are always going to be hard to come by. By we put ourselves in enough scoring positions to make me feel positive.

One thing I asked myself: did Wales 'do a Robshaw'?! I.e. Not take the points on offer when we should have? My golden rule from watching many years of international rugby: try the same thing TWICE only! If you kick to the corner and try the driving maul and it doesn't work twice then do something else. Invariably the 3rd time you lose the line out, knock on, get turned over, etc. Same for taking the scrum option on their line. Try it twice then do something else, or else it's likely you'll lose one against the head. We did this plenty yesterday!

So now we have to do this the hard way. But we're still in the tournament so happy days!

Well done Aus. Quality team, quality defence. 13 men against our ineffective team was easy for you to defend but still a great team effort. Good luck for the rest of the tournament. I hope you win!

P.s. Where's the honey badger?! Love that guy!

2ndtimeround wrote:

glamorganalun wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:What on earth were Wales thinking? They could have come out the other side of the Oz binnings 6 points in front if they had taken their kicks. Warburton will have to shoulder the responsibility for that defeat because Gatland surely would have called for the kicks. Wales should have won that and have only themselves to blame for being so stupid not taking the points.

I was thinking the same during the game, it seems to be a pattern during this world cup it has worked in some cases but if it does not work it is costly, Warburton is not a great captain in my eyes.

Hang on guys, take in to account that had they kicked the 1st penalty none of the others including Mumm's sin bin would of happened. Warburton called what he did on the basis that 7 points would put us in front, for me the team never truly had the belief they could win this one and that is what cost them the game in the end.

What would have happened was Wales would have got three points closer with a man advantage for another 9 minutes. Scoring creates pressure, and especially with Genia off Australia had to reorganise their whole backline. Wales were able to heap enough pressure to get another man binned with that advantage so why not after taking the penalty? Wales not taking the points with so much time left in the game smacked of desperation to get the advantage while they had the chance - when they didn't score ANY points the psychological advantage was handed to Australia and became the game defining minutes.
I'm not Welsh but I wanted them to win for the Pro12 and NH rugby. It's frustrating that Wales could have won that game with a bit of composure and guaranteed a NH team in the semis. Warburton had a great game as a player but no one would have questioned a decision to go for the posts - in a close game a try could have made all the difference, but Australia won just the same without one.

I could understand going for the corner after Genia binned.

I could understand them going for the scrum after Mumm binned.

but once those options tried, still 7 minutes (or so) on the double bin, take the 3 points then push back into Aussie territory.


But the stresses of international rugby do funny things to the brain.

I completely understand what Wales were doing, I simply cant understand why the backs didn't step up. Going through the forwards constantly was a massive mistake and played into the Aussies hands as it simply ate up time.

Haven't read through whole thread do to the weird (even for 606) wumming. So apologies if this point was already made, but while arguably one of the worlds top 3 wingers, north is a terrible 13. The amount of overlaps he butchered cost Wales dearly. He has no distribution and more than that he has a wingers instinct to always go for the line. No 13.

Wales forwards played like italian forwards during the multiple man advantage - ie without nous or intelligence. Aus could soak up one out runners all day long and their defense wasn't really tested at all.

eirebilly wrote:I completely understand what Wales were doing, I simply cant understand why the backs didn't step up. Going through the forwards constantly was a massive mistake and played into the Aussies hands as it simply ate up time.

Exactly Billy - surely you spread it wide, try get quick ball and after 4/5 phases they'll be stretched enough to take advantage.

But credit the Aussies, it was a mammoth effort. In my eyes I'd say they're currently the team to beat in this competition

Marshes wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

You must be at least half english

Not that I know of. How are those James Hook posters looking?

why can't you answer a simple question sensibly

the only injury doubt is Sanjay who IMO is a 15 and plays much better there, has a better kicking game and is better under the high ball

Therefore i would play him there if fit, with Morgan at 13 and North back on the wing

Hook is not by any stretch an ideal pick but right now id pick anyone over Cuthbert who IMO is close to a meltdown and does not belong on an international rugby pitch

Bit rich when you come out with crass statements. You said assuming the squad was fit, so I answered your question. Maybe you need to take a look at the world cup squad when it had been finalised.

For next game however, I would agree with your proposed changes. I don't mind seeing North and Tyler interchanging as I think the former makes a good centre partnership with Roberts.

I wouldn't pick Hook or Cuthbert and I've made my stance on that clear for quite some time. That would leave us little alternative than to have Matthew Morgan on the wing. I would have Lloyd Williams covering wing before Cuthbert on current form... Need to pray that Williams and Roberts are okay to play.

Who is even left to come in if Liam Williams and Roberts are ruled out? Aled Brew? Beck? Harry Robinson?

Beck and Robinson are both out with fairly long term injuries,

Not sure about Brew, haven't seen him play for ages?

Commiserations to the Welsh supporters. Your boys put up a hell of a fight. Just watched the replay and can't for the life of me understand why they didn't go wide when the Wobs were down to 13. Glad they didn't though.

Anyway, good luck against the Boks. I think you have a very good chance of getting past them. Would be a shame to see a team who has played so well (despite the adversity) to go out in the 1/4's. Wales certainly deserve their IRB ranking of 3rd.

OP....Maesteg ?

I think Wales has come down with the condition known as "Scottish Fever", you lose and some how are happy.

Wales lost both the football and rugby and yet were all happy. Very strange feeling.

Griff wrote:Morning all!

Haven't read all of the comments and can't really be bothered if truth be told. So apologies if this has been covered:

I'm not as deflated as I thought I'd be. After watching Aus v England I thought there was a good chance we'd get stuffed. That we weren't sort of pleases me, although I don't really want to be happy with a loss. It was a strange one. I'd say it was much less intense than the England game, much less physical that the Fiji game. We just couldn't find that next gear. We are poor in attack these days it would seem, but then again we were playing arguably the top SH team so opportunities are always going to be hard to come by. By we put ourselves in enough scoring positions to make me feel positive.

One thing I asked myself: did Wales 'do a Robshaw'?! I.e. Not take the points on offer when we should have? My golden rule from watching many years of international rugby: try the same thing TWICE only! If you kick to the corner and try the driving maul and it doesn't work twice then do something else. Invariably the 3rd time you lose the line out, knock on, get turned over, etc. Same for taking the scrum option on their line. Try it twice then do something else, or else it's likely you'll lose one against the head. We did this plenty yesterday!

So now we have to do this the hard way. But we're still in the tournament so happy days!

Well done Aus. Quality team, quality defence. 13 men against our ineffective team was easy for you to defend but still a great team effort. Good luck for the rest of the tournament. I hope you win!

P.s. Where's the honey badger?! Love that guy!

I sort of feel the same way, though to be fair about Wales lack of creativity, North and Roberts in the center and their both crash ball merchants. At the moment were so decimated by injuries we just have to play whomever is fit and accept their doing the best they can. At the end of the day Australia cut the English back line to pieces yet, Wales stuck whatever they had left out and held their line. That's a big positive in my eyes. Maybe Jonathan Davies or Scott Williams might of had that big of magic to break them open, but we'll never know now. Could we have maybe put Hook at outside center and opened them up a bit more, but at the same time would Wales of conceded tries to them as a result? With the benefit of hindsight we could of brought Hook on at 13 when Liam Williams went off and put North on the wing, maybe that might of changed things.

I'm not going to blame Sam for going for the try either, if we can't score a try when their down to 13 men we never will, that was the time to go for the throat not try and get 3 points. You just have to congratulate the magnificent Australian defense and accept nothing we could do could break them.

I don't think there is that much of a gulf between Australia and Wales though. Australia totally out classed England, Wales were more or less even and dominant for a large period putting Australia under extreme pressure which resulted in 2 of their players being carded. You can accept defeat only if you can see the players have given everything and they did.

Shifty wrote:

Griff wrote:Morning all!

Haven't read all of the comments and can't really be bothered if truth be told. So apologies if this has been covered:

I'm not as deflated as I thought I'd be. After watching Aus v England I thought there was a good chance we'd get stuffed. That we weren't sort of pleases me, although I don't really want to be happy with a loss. It was a strange one. I'd say it was much less intense than the England game, much less physical that the Fiji game. We just couldn't find that next gear. We are poor in attack these days it would seem, but then again we were playing arguably the top SH team so opportunities are always going to be hard to come by. By we put ourselves in enough scoring positions to make me feel positive.

One thing I asked myself: did Wales 'do a Robshaw'?! I.e. Not take the points on offer when we should have? My golden rule from watching many years of international rugby: try the same thing TWICE only! If you kick to the corner and try the driving maul and it doesn't work twice then do something else. Invariably the 3rd time you lose the line out, knock on, get turned over, etc. Same for taking the scrum option on their line. Try it twice then do something else, or else it's likely you'll lose one against the head. We did this plenty yesterday!

So now we have to do this the hard way. But we're still in the tournament so happy days!

Well done Aus. Quality team, quality defence. 13 men against our ineffective team was easy for you to defend but still a great team effort. Good luck for the rest of the tournament. I hope you win!

P.s. Where's the honey badger?! Love that guy!

I sort of feel the same way, though to be fair about Wales lack of creativity, North and Roberts in the center and their both crash ball merchants.  At the moment were so decimated by injuries we just have to play whomever is fit and accept their doing the best they can.  At the end of the day Australia cut the English back line to pieces yet, Wales stuck whatever they had left out and held their line.  That's a big positive in my eyes.  Maybe Jonathan Davies or Scott Williams might of had that big of magic to break them open, but we'll never know now.  Could we have maybe put Hook at outside center and opened them up a bit more, but at the same time would Wales of conceded tries to them as a result?  With the benefit of hindsight we could of brought Hook on at 13 when Liam Williams went off and put North on the wing, maybe that might of changed things.  

I'm not going to blame Sam for going for the try either, if we can't score a try when their down to 13 men we never will, that was the time to go for the throat not try and get 3 points.  You just have to congratulate the magnificent Australian defense and accept nothing we could do could break them.  

I don't think there is that much of a gulf between Australia and Wales though.  Australia totally out classed England, Wales were more or less even and dominant for a large period putting Australia under extreme pressure which resulted in 2 of their players being carded.  You can accept defeat only if you can see the players have given everything and they did.  

Agree with your last paragraph. England got stuffed, exited the World Cup early and yet you still have some English fans on here claiming they're as good if not better than Wales. Beggars belief.

For the life of me, will people stop believing Hook will come into the starting team and change our fortunes?

mikey_dragon wrote:

Agree with your last paragraph. England got stuffed, exited the World Cup early and yet you still have some English fans on here claiming they're as good if not better than Wales. Beggars belief.

For the life of me, will people stop believing Hook will come into the starting team and change our fortunes?

In fairness as an Irish fan, I believe that England do have a better squad than Wales. The main difference I see is that Wales are coached far better and stick like glue to their game plans. A well coached England squad would be a very good team.

eirebilly wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Agree with your last paragraph. England got stuffed, exited the World Cup early and yet you still have some English fans on here claiming they're as good if not better than Wales. Beggars belief.

For the life of me, will people stop believing Hook will come into the starting team and change our fortunes?

In fairness as an Irish fan, I believe that England do have a better squad than Wales. The main difference I see is that Wales are coached far better and stick like glue to their game plans. A well coached England squad would be a very good team.

Is Lancaster so indecisive though, or do they have TOO MUCH depth?  Too many players fighting it out for places can cause confusion and problems.  No player likes being dropped, but if players don't perform every match the English press goes baying for that players blood.  
I do agree though England do basically have better depth and more talent in many positions but their coaches are not as good and their not as great a TEAM.

Wales, with their horrific injury list, have (to me) proven they do have considerable depth.

I agree that England's main problem is the coaching/on-field leadership issues but what is the point of having supposedly more depth across all positions if you don't know which players to select (or repeatedly select the wrong ones) when the pressure is on? That surely must be even more confusing for the players themselves. Poor use of player depth or understanding of potential capabilities I say.

Shifty wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Agree with your last paragraph. England got stuffed, exited the World Cup early and yet you still have some English fans on here claiming they're as good if not better than Wales. Beggars belief.

For the life of me, will people stop believing Hook will come into the starting team and change our fortunes?

In fairness as an Irish fan, I believe that England do have a better squad than Wales. The main difference I see is that Wales are coached far better and stick like glue to their game plans. A well coached England squad would be a very good team.

Is Lancaster so indecisive though, or do they have TOO MUCH depth?  Too many players fighting it out for places can cause confusion and problems.  No player likes being dropped, but if players don't perform every match the English press goes baying for that players blood.  
I do agree though England do basically have better depth and more talent in many positions but their coaches are not as good and their not as great a TEAM.

Depth yes but talent I dissagree with you.

There are some very good England players, selected and not, there is a lot more depth, (larger playing population more cash than their competitors), but there is no increase in their talent pool.

The English media rarely write off a player, but they invariably over hype an average one or they focus on former glories and expect that player to return to the fray after a year out and perform at their best.

In Pool A England could not compete with the back row talent and intelligence of the othe teams. 

Australia, Wales and even Fiji all have plenty of top quality players but they all have less players playing at the top end of the professional level below international rugby.

Spot on Maes.

maestegmafia wrote:

Shifty wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Agree with your last paragraph. England got stuffed, exited the World Cup early and yet you still have some English fans on here claiming they're as good if not better than Wales. Beggars belief.

For the life of me, will people stop believing Hook will come into the starting team and change our fortunes?

In fairness as an Irish fan, I believe that England do have a better squad than Wales. The main difference I see is that Wales are coached far better and stick like glue to their game plans. A well coached England squad would be a very good team.

Is Lancaster so indecisive though, or do they have TOO MUCH depth?  Too many players fighting it out for places can cause confusion and problems.  No player likes being dropped, but if players don't perform every match the English press goes baying for that players blood.  
I do agree though England do basically have better depth and more talent in many positions but their coaches are not as good and their not as great a TEAM.

Depth yes but talent I dissagree with you.

There are some very good England players, selected and not, there is a lot more depth, (larger playing population more cash than their competitors), but there is no increase in their talent pool.

The English media rarely write off a player, but they invariably over hype an average one or they focus on former glories and expect that player to return to the fray after a year out and perform at their best.

In Pool A England could not compete with the back row talent and intelligence of the othe teams. 

Australia, Wales and even Fiji all have plenty of top quality players but they all have less players playing at the top end of the professional level below international rugby.

I heard an interesting comment by Nick Mallett the other day, he is of the opinion that England has a lot of quality players, but not enough world beating players.

He compared Ireland's provinces and France's clubs with all their money to England's performances in the European Cup.

When last did England have a dominant club? Leicester Tigers?

No9 wrote:

sportform wrote:Why didn't Wales take 3 points against Australia when 15 vs 13 to make the score 12-9 and then get the ball back and go again? I understand they wanted to get a try and possibly go 13-12 up but surely they should get some points first and protect themselves against Australia scoring another penalty.

Just back from the gamem and I cant accept we were against 13 men, and we we seemed to start against 18 men as the Ref, 2x linesmen and TMO seemed to know before the KO which side would get the decisions.... I have NEVER in my life blamed the officials, but I cannot believe how many decisions went Aus way... SH ref, SH started with 10 points advantage.... What a f***ing carve up....

Think Nigel Owens would have been less biased....

A little p!ssed last night, also really upset that we didn't perform and win when Aus down to 13 men and hence really cross we missed the best opportunity we've had to progress to a final.

However, I just want to apologise for my childish comment, I didn't really mean it....

Well done Aus, that was a great performance to keep us behind you on the score board, especially when down to 13 men.

Reckon you'll be in that final now, as you'll sweep all in that route to the final aside... Like to say, we'll see you there, but we have to do it the hard way now, which would be a miracle if we did, especially as we're running out of players...

Anyway, head clearing now... So as I said, sorry for my first outburst.

Apology accepted, No9.
Understandable you felt that way when you came on here last night. These things happen.

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Shifty wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Agree with your last paragraph. England got stuffed, exited the World Cup early and yet you still have some English fans on here claiming they're as good if not better than Wales. Beggars belief.

For the life of me, will people stop believing Hook will come into the starting team and change our fortunes?

In fairness as an Irish fan, I believe that England do have a better squad than Wales. The main difference I see is that Wales are coached far better and stick like glue to their game plans. A well coached England squad would be a very good team.

Is Lancaster so indecisive though, or do they have TOO MUCH depth?  Too many players fighting it out for places can cause confusion and problems.  No player likes being dropped, but if players don't perform every match the English press goes baying for that players blood.  
I do agree though England do basically have better depth and more talent in many positions but their coaches are not as good and their not as great a TEAM.

Depth yes but talent I dissagree with you.

There are some very good England players, selected and not, there is a lot more depth, (larger playing population more cash than their competitors), but there is no increase in their talent pool.

The English media rarely write off a player, but they invariably over hype an average one or they focus on former glories and expect that player to return to the fray after a year out and perform at their best.

In Pool A England could not compete with the back row talent and intelligence of the othe teams. 

Australia, Wales and even Fiji all have plenty of top quality players but they all have less players playing at the top end of the professional level below international rugby.

I heard an interesting comment by Nick Mallett the other day, he is of the opinion that England has a lot of quality players, but not enough world beating players.

He compared Ireland's provinces and France's clubs with all their money to England's performances in the European Cup.

When last did England have a dominant club? Leicester Tigers?

Saracens have been their flagship club in the European Cup, but haven't had the same Ora as the tigers of old maybe they have too many foreign players and lack the club ethos Tigers have?

Mallet is right, though I would say in Slade and Watson England have two players who could become greats of the game if managed and coached correctly.

England like France should be a consistently top five team. Those should be the two teams vying for NH dominance but the trouble is that in both countries the club game has more power than the international game and that handicaps their ability.

Over the last ten years the financial power of the clubs in both France and England has been overwhelming in NH rugby. They have the ability to attract a cash flow thatthe rest of the NH can only dream of.

But in that same time span we have seen those two teams rarely compete as successfully as Wales and Ireland.

wales606 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

You've got to feel a bit sorry for Cuthbert.

Will Liam Williams out we now have no options but Cuthbert on the wing!

Well we do, as Liam Williams will need replaced. But, we all know Gatland won't drop him. It's absolutely farcical that we are in a World Cup and we are letting people try and find some form.

OP:.....yet all roads seem to lead to England. Even on threads not about England. Still...thanks for the concern lads.

Even if Cuthbert is only 50% it's still 50%. Hmm a one legged rugby player not too sure about that

No9 wrote:

No9 wrote:

sportform wrote:Why didn't Wales take 3 points against Australia when 15 vs 13 to make the score 12-9 and then get the ball back and go again? I understand they wanted to get a try and possibly go 13-12 up but surely they should get some points first and protect themselves against Australia scoring another penalty.

Just back from the gamem and I cant accept we were against 13 men, and we we seemed to start against 18 men as the Ref, 2x linesmen and TMO seemed to know before the KO which side would get the decisions.... I have NEVER in my life blamed the officials, but I cannot believe how many decisions went Aus way... SH ref, SH started with 10 points advantage.... What a f***ing carve up....

Think Nigel Owens would have been less biased....

A little p!ssed last night, also really upset that we didn't perform and win when Aus down to 13 men and hence really cross we missed the best opportunity we've had to progress to a final.

However, I just want to apologise for my childish comment, I didn't really mean it....

Well done Aus, that was a great performance to keep us behind you on the score board, especially when down to 13 men.

Reckon you'll be in that final now, as you'll sweep all in that route to the final aside... Like to say, we'll see you there, but we have to do it the hard way now, which would be a miracle if we did, especially as we're running out of players...

Anyway, head clearing now... So as I said, sorry for my first outburst.  

Im glad you calmed down a bit, to blame the officials when they dished out two yellow cards on the same attack is a bit rich ...espeically as it was Wales' consitent infringing (on accassion cynical) which had led to the warnings being issued.

On the scrum side .. well god only knows whats going on with all that. Aus are ceratinly a much more street wise unit thna they were, and did a number to draw penalties form England too...but they certainly can shove and you cannot argue that they stood up to Wales in raw power as well as in gamesmanship in that area.

Blaming the refs for Wales' failure to convert endless possesions in the 22 is way off the mark. Look to the make shift backline and third choice players for starters, as well as some epic tackle success from Australia. And Faletaus brain (or lack of). And Anscombes horror show. Not to mention a slice of luck going Austrlias way.

Theres certainly only 1 of these two sides that looks like they will go on to trouble New Zealand, and its not the ones in red....the volume of injuries is telling and having two games of such intensity in the pool stages wont help the few remaining fit players. Id expect Australias chances to have taken a hit too, for once Rattue had a point when he said this wanst just the pool of death for england, but anyone emerging from it will have had their chances reduced by the toll its taking on players.

Super game between two quality sides.

Fair play to Wales for how they have performed in this group, given the injuries and how they've been written off.

The Wallabies have looked a different class though - amazing defensive effort to hold Wales out with 13 men, they look serious contenders and Cheika has done an amazing job. It will take some effort to stop them on this form.

Should Warburton had took the points on offer rather than kick to the corner?

Don't start TightHEAD!!!

Seriously, with a man advantage... And then 2 man advantage I think you have a much better argument to go for the line. I don't think warburton was wrong to do it. Ultimately his team lacked the guile to take the points, and the Australian defence was superb.

Always take the points.

actually i agree with tighthead. Defending on your line is far easier than on the halfway line. I think they could have exploited 2 men down there.

Take the points and then give yourself 9 mins with an open field against 13 men to get the lead.

A hot game is a hot game.  Players are pumped and mistakes happen in tactics.  

Wales wanted to kill off Australia's will with a power play of aggression close to the line.

There is always a real risk in playing that card (even against 15 men).  If you succeed, you do make your intimidation statement and it does buy you extra energy levels and cowers the opposition somewhat.  
But the longer the opposition hold out on that line, the more the odds of keeping you out grow.  And the more that energy grows, the bigger the pay back for the defending team when they succeed.

I often find myself shouting at my teams NOT to keep this going because I know that the longer it goes on the more the opposition will feed off it if it doesn't succeed.  In these games of big boys against big boys - take points and return.

But hot games are hot games and mistakes will keep being made

If we're being honest injuries cost Wales, a Scott Williams, Jon Davies, Leigh Halfpenny on the park and theyd have put 1 away, with a point advantage it is game on. Not to say Aus wouldnt have got one back to win it, but going into last 10 with a 1 point lead and Aus under the cosh was always going to be better than 6 point defecit.

I agree also, Iwouldve kicked the 3 after the 2nd yellow and played it back

I am very disappointed after the game on Saturday, I thought at 13 men, they were there for the taking, we were just not good enough, we played into their hands with our bish bash style, if we had Scott Williams or John Davies I think we would have scored a try, but we didn't and here we are.

Australia will make the final now.

Fanster wrote:If we're being honest injuries cost Wales, a Scott Williams, Jon Davies, Leigh Halfpenny on the park and theyd have put 1 away, with a point advantage it is game on. Not to say Aus wouldnt have got one back to win it, but going into last 10 with a 1 point lead and Aus under the cosh was always going to be better than 6 point defecit.

I agree also, Iwouldve kicked the 3 after the 2nd yellow and played it back

But this has been a long running thing for Wales. Fantastic defense check, Good kicker check, great nerve/spirit/ whatever check. Decent running/ try scoring threat nope. They have had moments when they have overrun opponents and scored a few but that hasn't happened very often, and certainly not against the better teams.

Gatland needs to reassess his coaching team after this World Cup, especially Rob Howley. He's been in post for years and I've struggled to see any progress in terms of threat from the backs.

When your backs are mostly forwards in Back numbers (I'm sure Gatland's choice more than Howley's) then it's difficult to create a more 'conventional' threat from backs. Roberts will do the explosive but he's hardly going to do a skip, bluff, shimmy, dance, swerve and bolt. North and Cuthbert have been forced into the savagery of the physical game too. I think Cuthbert is simply a spent force in terms of the conditioning he's been forced to do down other avenues. The lifeforce of a wing is not in his eyes - which is quite sad actually. He's become a flogged workhorse.
That's not to say North, Cuthbert and Roberts won't possibly shine still in this competition, but they are servicing a game of hit and impact.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Gatland needs to reassess his coaching team after this World Cup, especially Rob Howley. He's been in post for years and I've struggled to see any progress in terms of threat from the backs.

We'll take Edwards.

SecretFly wrote:When your backs are mostly forwards in Back numbers (I'm sure Gatland's choice more than Howley's) then it's difficult to create a more 'conventional' threat from backs.  

The current lot of backs arent really sleected by anyone, more by injury. As for Howley hes been there for all the successes as well as the loses. I dont see how he carries more or less of the can than Gatland, aside from the games whne he was solely in charge (sort of)

the rationale for shaking up the sub coaches is the same as for getting rid of Gatland himslef, it largely depends on the result of the last game apparently. I cant imagine my Waleslanders were calling for heads to roll a couple of weeks ago.

How many penalties did Australia concede in that red zone with 2 men down? 4-5?

With that 2 man advantage logic says you must score, so the initial decision to not go for goal was the right one, you could argue the second decision as well, but adter two failed attempts you are running the advantage down and not gaining any points.

By the third penalty you don't go for goal it becomes insanity to expect a different result doing thr same thing

Just to add, when you have an opponent in his redzone you have a lot less space to exploit, because with the try line behind them they have little depth in defence, if Wales took the kick at goal and then started again after the restart they have width and depth to attack, it changes the perspective and dynamics of attacking against 13 men.

Biltong wrote:How many penalties did Australia concede in that red zone with 2 men down? 4-5?

With that 2 man advantage logic says you must score, so the initial decision to not go for goal was the right one, you could argue the second decision as well, but adter two failed attempts you are running the advantage down and not gaining any points.

By the third penalty you don't go for goal it becomes insanity to expect a different result doing thr same thing

If I roll 2 6's in a row does that make it more or less likely a 6 will come up next time?

Actually in this case Id argue that the more attempts they took to drive Australia over then the greater probaility of success they had. Australia should have bene getting more tired, and were shipping more penalties which could lead to further cards. Releasing pressure with a 3 point kick wastes more time and gives possession back to them.
To me it seems odd to have the opportunity for 3 points, turn it down, waste 5 minutes, then decide to take the opprtunity for 3 points and hand posession back. It was either a bad decision form the of to chase the try or it was legit to keep chasing it.

I dont even recall any of the penalties where a kick was turned down in thered sone being in the middle of the pitch and noticebaly easier angle than the initial one turned down.

Gooseberry wrote:

Biltong wrote:How many penalties did Australia concede in that red zone with 2 men down? 4-5?

With that 2 man advantage logic says you must score, so the initial decision to not go for goal was the right one, you could argue the second decision as well, but adter two failed attempts you are running the advantage down and not gaining any points.

By the third penalty you don't go for goal it becomes insanity to expect a different result doing thr same thing

If I roll 2 6's in a row does that make it more or less likely a 6 will come up next time?

Actually in this case Id argue that the more attempts they took to drive Australia over then the greater probaility of success they had. Australia should have bene getting more tired, and were shipping more penalties which could lead to further cards. Releasing pressure with a 3 point kick wastes more time and gives possession back to them.
To me it seems odd to have the opportunity for 3 points, turn it down, waste 5 minutes, then decide to take the opprtunity for 3 points and hand posession back. It was either  a bad decision form the of to chase the try or it was legit to keep chasing it.

I dont even recall any of the penalties where a kick was turned down in thered sone being in the middle of the pitch and noticebaly easier angle than the initial one turned down.

Gooseberry, this is not rolling a dce though, is it?

This is an Australian team buidling more beleif and resovle after every failed attempt by Wales, ot is a Welsh team making errors, not being able to use the adantage they are recieving to its full potential.

It generates a naggging doubt eventually, and under pressure passes are less accurate, decisions become poor, it becomes predictable.

I said the same thing earlier in the thread: try something twice only. If it doesn't work, change it as it's likely (from watching tons of international matches) that the 3rd or 4th time the attacking team will lose the lineout/lose a scrum against the head/knock on, etc. So yes, attempt to get the try. Have another go. But after two goes I'd have said 'enough's enough, lets take some kickable points and regroup and have them kick off to us'.

Well if the opposition know we'll only be going for it twice then surely they will begin to infringe more? I can see what we were trying to do, we just didn't execute well at all.

Warburton made a big mistake imo, is his captaincy being questioned (like Robshaw's was) in the Welsh media?

He made the right call, it's just his team weren't good enough to score against 13 men. Robshaw has made numerous calls to go for 3 points with like 2 minutes to go when you're trailing by more than 3 so it's not really comparable. That's why the media doesn't question him.