England V Wales Coverage

by TheGreyGhost Sat 06 Aug 2011, 13:34

First topic message reminder :

...is 23 seconds old and we've revisited Jonny Wilkinson's 2003 final drop goal.

Twice.

by TycroesOsprey Sat 06 Aug 2011, 19:51

Personally our strongest team is this

1.Gethin
2.Smiler
3.Adam
4.Bradley
5.AWJ
6.Lydiate
7.Warburton
8.Delve
9.Phillips
10.Hook
11.Shane
12.Henson
13.Roberts
14.Halfpenny
15.Byrne

by Shifty Sat 06 Aug 2011, 19:56

Draigoch wrote:Alyn - I'm not sure, our 8-9-10 and 12-13 combinations in particular are ones I'm not happy with. I'm really hoping whoever is picked next week causes chaos and we can go 100% with that.

Bennett surprised me today, I have to admit. But the second mucked up lineout lead to the scrum where they scored a try. You could say this cost us 7 points..

Yes but considering how bad he usually is, I think he was immesurably better than he has been in International rugby over the last few seasons!
You can't blame him for the scrum try that was James getting minced by Stevens and Lydiate not supporting his prop properly. Then Lydiate again missing Haskell with a tackle.

by Taffineastbourne Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:06

AlynDavies wrote:
Draigoch wrote:Alyn - I'm not sure, our 8-9-10 and 12-13 combinations in particular are ones I'm not happy with. I'm really hoping whoever is picked next week causes chaos and we can go 100% with that.

Bennett surprised me today, I have to admit. But the second mucked up lineout lead to the scrum where they scored a try. You could say this cost us 7 points..

Yes but considering how bad he usually is, I think he was immesurably better than he has been in International rugby over the last few seasons!
You can't blame him for the scrum try that was James getting minced by Stevens and Lydiate not supporting his prop properly. Then Lydiate again missing Haskell with a tackle.

You are joking,right??

by tomathy Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:10

maestegmafia wrote:
tomathy wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
tomathy wrote: although I think their team was nearer the first choice XV than ours.
it wasnt even that near the expected starting fifteen? Stephen jones pulled out, we had no fullback a third choices in the front row. I think that half that team were not wales first choices and that this game showed that the strength and depth in the welsh squad is a lot stronger than people gave credit for before.

Based on the six nations I think that the side Wales named had 10 first choice players, 9 after Jones pulled out. England by my count had 3 of our first choice six nations players, plus the return of croft and moody.
The side that played the six nations was missing a bunch of first choice players too. Gethin Jenkins and Adam Jones were two notable absentees in the six Nations.

7 is much nearer the amount of first picks

To be honest I'd forgotten that Jenkins and jones didn't play the six nations. The 10 I'd counted were 4-7 and 9-14 (in the end minus jones so just 9). If I've mistakenly called some of them first choice then my mistake, but I thought they would all be considered first choice now (though many may argue the centre partnership)

by Totallybiasedscarlet Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:24

Well, I thought there was a big improvement in that game in many aspects. Bennett surprised me with a very good display by his standards. Phillips was much improved but still slow. When Tav got on he showed urgency in making the ball available. Best shape was when Roberts went to FB and Tav came on. The whole back line looked more balanced and got stronger as the game went on.

Positives:

We didn't get a humiliating hiding
Priestland showed he's a good fly half
Fitness is very good
We outscored England on the try count at twickenham Smile

North showed some good positional play and looked hungry for work
We finally looked like we wanted to play what was in front of us, though there were a few wayward up and unders nowhere near as bad as it has been

Negatives:

A very poor share of posession
Scrum looks to have weakened a little (though not humiliated)
Phillips went AWOL for Haskells try (Thank heavens Gatland picked up on it!)
Stoddart's injury - absolutely gutted vomit

as a

I hope things don't get shuffled too much next weekend. The only changes should be ones that strengthen the team. Leave experiments for Argentina.

Personally I'm hoping for:

Roberts
North
Williams
JD2
Williams
Priestland
Knoyle

Delve
Warburton
Lydiate
AWJ
Davies
Jones
Rees
Jenkins

James
Bennett (deserves a chance after today - but I am no means a big fan!)
Jones
Faletau

Phillips
Hook
1/P

Injuries allowing of course.

by TycroesOsprey Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:33

TBS, come on man its Wales not the Scarlets, that backline is an appallingly biased pick even with your name, no Henson, no Hook, no Lloyd Williams, No Aled Brew, all of whom we need to see in the next game.

by Totallybiasedscarlet Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:38

TycroesOsprey wrote:TBS, come on man its Wales not the Scarlets, that backline is an appallingly biased pick even with your name, no Henson, no Hook, no Lloyd Williams, No Aled Brew, all of whom we need to see in the next game.

It may well be, but to be fair don't you think they did well today and looked just about the most threatening backline Wales have had in a long time?

Hook/Priestland as a 10/12 or vice versa combo with JD2 @ 13 is quite intriguing however. What do you think Tycroes?

Personally I'm not sure about Lloyd Williams. Doesn't have much rugby experience full stop (admittedly neither does North). Lets make sure of a good morale boosting win next weekend and then rotate for the argentina match.

by **Ozzy3213** Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:40

As an Englishman looking in at the Welsh camp, I would say Priestland has done enough today to earn another shot in the 10 jersey. With Byrne having shown no form at 15 for about 2 years, they also need to look at options at fullback and I would give Roberts and Halfpenny 40 minutes each there next week.

I'd also have a look at a JD2/Hook midfield with Henson coming off the bench.

by majesticimperialman Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:40

I was very suprised not too see Gavin Henson at all today.

Is Gavin Henson atill apart of the Welsh squad, or has he been discreetly dropped from the squad by Warran Gatland?

by Shifty Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:42

majesticimperialman wrote:I was very suprised not too see Gavin Henson at all today.

Is Gavin Henson atill apart of the Welsh squad, or has he been discreetly dropped from the squad by Warran Gatland?

Twickenham with a crowd baying for his blood wasn't the best place for him.
Cardiff with a passionate home crowd against England, will set the story up nicely for him. All or nothing for Henson now I think.

by lostinwales Sat 06 Aug 2011, 20:59

How are ticket sales at Cardiff for next week? I was getting the idea that the crowd, though passionate, might not be that big

by TycroesOsprey Sat 06 Aug 2011, 21:16

Honestly, I dont rate Tavis, I really thought Rhys Webb was the future at 9 until I saw Lloyd Williams play, he really has it all and I think he will prove that if hes given gametime next week. Phillips is still first choice and needs another start with lloyd to come on.

Priestland did very well today but I would rather see him given game time at fullback. He is behind Wellies and Hook for the OH berth.

Of the two centres Roberts looked back to his best form whlist JD (of whom I am a fan) had a relatively quiet game. So I certainly wouldnt put Roberts to full back, I would keep him in midfield, to partner Henson. Scott Williams looked what he was today, a brilliant prospect played out of position initially but still terribly inexperienced.

Shane needs to be wrapped in cotton wool a little bit and with Stoddart out we need to look at Brew. I would keep North on the other flank if halfpenny isnt ready yet. Byrne is our first choice fb and beeds to play and honestly Priestland is a better option than Roberts as back up fb.

Thats what I think Wink

by Shifty Sat 06 Aug 2011, 21:23

lostinwales wrote:How are ticket sales at Cardiff for next week? I was getting the idea that the crowd, though passionate, might not be that big

Sold out I think. Cool

TycroesOsprey wrote:Honestly, I dont rate Tavis, I really thought Rhys Webb was the future at 9 until I saw Lloyd Williams play, he really has it all and I think he will prove that if hes given gametime next week. Phillips is still first choice and needs another start with lloyd to come on.

I'm an Ospreys fan but I really rate Knoyle, though didn't used to, he has come on so much this season. He has Phillips size, but doesn't let it dominate his game. He can power over, he is very assertive with his pack, he shouts at them and encourages them, he organizes things well, and he can change the pace of a game. He has proven to be a great impact player, no he needs to prove he can be a good starter.
Webb did well at the end of last season despite being behind a beaten pack, but he needs more time before he is a serious consideration for Wales. I need to see more of Burns to be honest so I can;t say anything on him Sad

.

by TycroesOsprey Sat 06 Aug 2011, 21:26

Burns is a hooker Alyn, Williams is a 9.

I think we have to differ over Tavis.

by Shifty Sat 06 Aug 2011, 21:29

TycroesOsprey wrote:Burns is a hooker Alyn, Williams is a 9.

I think we have to differ over Tavis.

Yup sorry typo, it's late and I'm watching Lord of the rings while drinking Whistle

by mckay1402 Sat 06 Aug 2011, 22:52

i like priestland at 10. I think he's the real deal. Jd2 plays better at 12 but needs someone to run off. Maybe hook at 13. Hook tends to play well in space so that might suit him too. He has the pace and the fend to play there. My back three would be north, williams and probably halfpenny at fb. Byrne seems to have gone back to his scarlets form. Not bad from wales today but i think we can expect a very fired up england next weekend. Will be very tough

by TheGreyGhost Sat 06 Aug 2011, 23:24

He looked good didn't he? It was a funny old match though. Wales started strongly and then faded, England looked to be all over them, then England faded and Wales dominated. Shane Williams career must surely be in it's twilight, other than some good work to finish off a try he seemed to offer nothing in attack, and less than nothing in defence. It must be sorely tempting to replace him with a normal sized person.

by wales606 Sat 06 Aug 2011, 23:37

TheGreyGhost wrote:It must be sorely tempting to replace him with a normal sized person.

I thought something similar, how long before

11. North
14. Halfpenny

Are our starting wingers.

In fact, if everyone is fit, I would have

11. North
14. Halfpenny
15. Stoddart

That backline would have bags of pace and are not to shy is defence or in the tackle.

by maestegmafia Sun 07 Aug 2011, 00:48

TycroesOsprey wrote:Honestly, I dont rate Tavis, I really thought Rhys Webb was the future at 9 until I saw Lloyd Williams play, he really has it all and I think he will prove that if hes given gametime next week. Phillips is still first choice and needs another start with lloyd to come on.

I find it so hard to believe that someone can watch Tavis knoyle and not think he is the best scrum half in wales all last season ...?

by Guest Sun 07 Aug 2011, 01:12

TheGreyGhost wrote:He looked good didn't he? It was a funny old match though. Wales started strongly and then faded, England looked to be all over them, then England faded and Wales dominated. Shane Williams career must surely be in it's twilight, other than some good work to finish off a try he seemed to offer nothing in attack, and less than nothing in defence. It must be sorely tempting to replace him with a normal sized person.

Your last line is funny, but yeah it is true. I was so annoyed how many times he turned his back on somebody running up his wing today. Good finish, but there's not really much there now. I am not sure if we can start him on the chance he might score a try. North can finish as can Halfpenny. Even the often criticised Brew scored off his one real half opportunity in his last start.

by mckay1402 Sun 07 Aug 2011, 03:16

give him a chance. He's just coming back from injury and is bound to be a bit rusty.

by Guest Sun 07 Aug 2011, 03:45

mckay1402 wrote:give him a chance. He's just coming back from injury and is bound to be a bit rusty.

Mate, I will normally back Shane to the hilt, but you can't blame rustiness on somebody turning their back on people running towards them. It was not a good sight.

by PJHolybloke Sun 07 Aug 2011, 12:51

TheGreyGhost wrote:He looked good didn't he? It was a funny old match though. Wales started strongly and then faded, England looked to be all over them, then England faded and Wales dominated. Shane Williams career must surely be in it's twilight, other than some good work to finish off a try he seemed to offer nothing in attack, and less than nothing in defence. It must be sorely tempting to replace him with a normal sized person.

They have to balance Williams out with North, if they didn't, with the natural camber of a rugby pitch they wouldn't be able to see each other.

by Shifty Sun 07 Aug 2011, 16:37

TheGreyGhost wrote:It must be sorely tempting to replace him with a normal sized person.

Trixie, false little hobbisses! furious

by Knackeredknees Sun 07 Aug 2011, 18:00

AlynDavies wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:It must be sorely tempting to replace him with a normal sized person.
Trixie, false little hobbisses!

Still watching Lord of the Rings Alyn? thumbsup

by Shifty Sun 07 Aug 2011, 18:08

Knackeredknees wrote:Still watching Lord of the Rings Alyn?

You have to do something to get over the depression of Wales losing to England censored

by Knackeredknees Sun 07 Aug 2011, 18:12

AlynDavies wrote:
Knackeredknees wrote:Still watching Lord of the Rings Alyn?

You have to do something to get over the depression of Wales losing to England

May i suggest the Harry Potter films as they are longer and may last till the next Wales win(6N 20??) angel

by TheGreyGhost Sun 07 Aug 2011, 20:33

Or maybe a replay of Ireland v Scotland. I didn't time it, but it seemed to go on for three years.

by Pot Hale Sun 07 Aug 2011, 21:12

TheGreyGhost wrote:Or maybe a replay of Ireland v Scotland. I didn't time it, but it seemed to go on for three years.

Why did you watch this warm-up match - it is of no relevance to Kiwi fans and should not have been watched by any of them.

This game had a purpose which you couldn't even begin to comprehend.

by Guest Sun 07 Aug 2011, 21:14

Bit harsh Pot, I watched it and I'm Welsh, should I not have?

It was on tv for anyone to watch, and anyone is allowed an opinion on it, doesn't matter where they're from or if the match had any relevence for them personally.

by Pot Hale Sun 07 Aug 2011, 21:19

rugbydreamer wrote:Bit harsh Pot, I watched it and I'm Welsh, should I not have? ....

No. Unless you want to be put off rugby for life.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 07 Aug 2011, 21:24

England tried to bore us all to death in 2003, and then tried to bore other teams to sleep during the game in 2007. They were undeniably the zenith of the art, so any attempts by Ireland or Scotland now will be in vain I'm afraid.

by nottins Sun 07 Aug 2011, 21:46

TheGreyGhost wrote:England tried to bore us all to death in 2003, and then tried to bore other teams to sleep during the game in 2007. They were undeniably the zenith of the art, so any attempts by Ireland or Scotland now will be in vain I'm afraid.

Is that the England in 2003 who won the Grand Slam with lots of tries and won the RWC whilst NZ lost to Australia ? I seem to remember that England scored the same amount of tries and penalties in the final as Australia did ? What is the excuse for NZ losing that semi final ?

by majesticimperialman Sun 07 Aug 2011, 21:49

TheGreyGhost wrote:England tried to bore us all to death in 2003, and then tried to bore other teams to sleep during the game in 2007. They were undeniably the zenith of the art, so any attempts by Ireland or Scotland now will be in vain I'm afraid.

When England won the rugby world cup you mean, another world cup that New Zealand was knocked out of Doh

And of course in 2007 when England reached the Final, and New Zeland was knocked out by France

Compaired to New Zealand England might play boring rugby, but it atleast gets England to the final. (That is with out being knocked of the tournament)you do understand that right. thumbsup

by Pot Hale Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:26

TheGreyGhost wrote:England tried to bore us all to death in 2003, and then tried to bore other teams to sleep during the game in 2007. They were undeniably the zenith of the art, so any attempts by Ireland or Scotland now will be in vain I'm afraid.

I strongly disagree. You're obviously far too young to have seen matches involving Ireland in the eighties and nineties - losses to Namibia, Romania and Italy come to mind. England in 2007 were supreme rugby artists in comparison.

England in 2003 were in their pomp with whom no team could live, including New Zealand - both inside and outside the RWC.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:30

I suggest that "no team could live" is a slight over statement. At their peak, they scrounged out a victory by a few points. SCW saw to it that England played NZ very infrequently in that time. Compare that to other sides in periods of dominance where there is clear water between themselves and other sides. NZ last year, SA the year before that...

Anyway, my point is not whether England were effective, but rather just that they were so tedious in their approach to the game. Having petitioned the IRB to remove rucking from the game, they then spent a decade lying on the ball.

by lostinwales Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:35

If I could be bothered to properly reply I could go and look up the frequency at which England played NZ and remember the time when they went to NZ in what - 2001 or 2002? and apparently there were some issues with how a full 8 man NZ scrum couldnt push 6 English guys back but - really - I know someone will make a pathetic attempt to twist the argument round and drag the crap out over more and more pages.

by nottins Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:42

TheGreyGhost wrote:Having petitioned the IRB to remove rucking from the game

Any proof to support that ? I thought not. As per usual

by TheGreyGhost Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:44

It's a fact that NZ played England just twice in the time that England were ranked #1.

Once was a development AB side who lost to England 31-28 at Twickenham. The other time was the infamous 15-13 win in Wellington.

As you say on the second occasion England had judged that with Carlos Spencer and a howling wellington breeze to contend with, they could infringe and slow until their eyes fell out and there was no way NZ would pot a shot at goal. To prove them right, Spencer missed a shot at goal for the game on full time from right in front after the 13 man England had committed yet another cynical try saving professional foul.

I'm not denying that England won those two game, just saying that (a) they were very boring in winning and (b) SCW preferred to play Italy and Romania so that he could write better headlines about how dominant they were, and how they really could score tries..., (c) losing by 2 - 3 points is hardly "not being able to LIVE WITH England"...is it?

After all, we heard that it was a "moral victory" for England to lose by 10 points to NZ in the recent EOYT. Rather than "failed to live with NZ".

by nottins Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:46

lostinwales wrote:If I could be bothered to properly reply I could go and look up the frequency at which England played NZ and remember the time when they went to NZ in what - 2001 or 2002? and apparently there were some issues with how a full 8 man NZ scrum couldnt push 6 English guys back but - really - I know someone will make a pathetic attempt to twist the argument round and drag the crap out over more and more pages.

You would have thought that NZ would have managed to find a way of beating a side that was down 14 men for nearly 20 minutes ? England somehow managing to win that period of the game 3-0, when history shows that a side down to 14 for 10 minutes concedes on average 10 points.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:48

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's a fact that NZ played England just twice in the time that England were ranked #1.

Once was a development AB side who lost to England 31-28 at Twickenham. The other time was the infamous 15-13 win in Wellington.

As you say on the second occasion England had judged that with Carlos Spencer and a howling wellington breeze to contend with, they could infringe and slow until their eyes fell out and there was no way NZ would pot a shot at goal. To prove them right, Spencer missed a shot at goal for the game on full time from right in front after the 13 man England had committed yet another cynical try saving professional foul.

I'm not denying that England won those two game, just saying that (a) they were very boring in winning and (b) SCW preferred to play Italy and Romania so that he could write better headlines about how dominant they were, and how they really could score tries..., (c) losing by 2 - 3 points is hardly "not being able to LIVE WITH England"...is it?

After all, we heard that it was a "moral victory" for England to lose by 10 points to NZ in the recent EOYT. Rather than "failed to live with NZ".

by RubyGuby Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:51

GG - Why destroy those precious memorys these anglo boys have - let them romance in the memory when they ruled the world for a while. Its a bit colonial I know but bless 'em; those moments may never return. thumbsup

In fact let them eat cake while their doing it cake

by nottins Sun 07 Aug 2011, 22:57

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's a fact that NZ played England just twice in the time that England were ranked #1.

The IRB rankings didn't start until 13/10/2003. How did NZ and England manage to play 2 games during the RWC 2003 tournament ?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Once was a development AB side who lost to England 31-28 at Twickenham. The other time was the infamous 15-13 win in Wellington.

Err, no. See above

TheGreyGhost wrote:As you say on the second occasion England had judged that with Carlos Spencer and a howling wellington breeze to contend with, they could infringe and slow until their eyes fell out and there was no way NZ would pot a shot at goal. To prove them right, Spencer missed a shot at goal for the game on full time from right in front after the 13 man England had committed yet another cynical try saving professional foul.

So Spencer couldn't hit a barn door with a spade at his home venue, but Wilkinson could, talk about picking your flimsy excuses. Again.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 07 Aug 2011, 23:01

nottins wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:It's a fact that NZ played England just twice in the time that England were ranked #1.

The IRB rankings didn't start until 13/10/2003. How did NZ and England manage to play 2 games during the RWC 2003 tournament ?

I stand corrected then. England didn't play NZ even once whilst ranked #1. But it's true that those two games were included in the calculation. Jeez, I was just trying to throw you guys a bone.

by RubyGuby Sun 07 Aug 2011, 23:06

GG You throw bones like Huw Bennett throws rugby balls

by nottins Sun 07 Aug 2011, 23:07

TheGreyGhost wrote:
I stand corrected then.

Yep. Again Very Happy

TheGreyGhost wrote:England didn't play NZ even once whilst ranked #1. But it's true that those two games were included in the calculation. Jeez, I was just trying to throw you guys a bone.

That's not England's fault, they were waiting for you in the 2003 final, but you fell by the wayside before the main event. Again.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 07 Aug 2011, 23:10

It's odd to see "England" and "fell by the wayside" in the context of 2003, rather than the more traditional context of everything that transpired post 2003.

by aucklandlaurie Sun 07 Aug 2011, 23:11

Nottins
I cant remember Carlos Spencer playing for Wellington,....
Horowhenua and Auckland yes,

by Taffineastbourne Sun 07 Aug 2011, 23:15

Anyone read the match report in the Mail on Sunday?Who were England playing?Interesting piece of "journalism"!

by Pot Hale Sun 07 Aug 2011, 23:18

TheGreyGhost wrote:I suggest that "no team could live" is a slight over statement. At their peak, they scrounged out a victory by a few points. SCW saw to it that England played NZ very infrequently in that time.

Wow - you really do begrudge England, no matter what.

Woodward made it a clear part of his strategy to play and defeat SH unions at home and on the visitors' turf prior to the RWC. NZ are not the only SH team to be a contender at the RWC. Nor the only SH team to be played on tours. England had a winning streak against SA from 2000- 2006. And 5 matches on the bounce against Australia from 2000 to the RWC final. They played NZ in 2002 in November following the NZ two-match series against Ireland earlier that year. And played them again in the following RWC year, winning on both occasions, even though they weren't the No 1 team.

From what I can gather, NZ toured to Italy and France in 2000, Ireland, Scotland and Argentina in 2001, and England, France and Wales in 2002. You're seeking a conspiracy of avoidance that doesn't seem to stand up.

"Couldn't live with" is a metaphor for they couldn't defeat them - whether it's by a few points, because of howling winds, a poor kicker or whatever. I'm sure if NZ had managed to drop a goal in the quarter-final against France, you wouldn't begrudge them the victory.

Why not just accept England were the better team up to the time of the RWC final? Most pundits do. I realise that the day a New Zealander accepts that rugby can be played any other way than how New Zealand plays it, there'll be a few pigs in the sky, so I won't bother debating that point.

by Sponsored content