SF2 - Match Thread - WALES v SOUTH AFRICA - 27/10/19 - K/O 09:00 GMT

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

Again, making these early for the sake of ease and consistency.

WALES

Team:Halfpenny; North, J Davies, Parkes, Adams; Biggar, G Davies; Wyn Jones, Owens, Francis, Ball, Alun Wyn Jones (capt), Wainwright, Moriarty, Tipuric.

Replacements: Dee, R Carre, D Lewis, Beard, Shingler, T Williams, Patchell, Watkin.

SOUTH AFRICA

South Africa: Le Roux; Nkosi, Am, De Allende, Mapimpi; Pollard, De Klerk; Mtawarira, Mbonambi, Malherbe, Etzebeth, De Jager, Kolisi (capt), Du Toit, Vermeulen

Replacements: Marx, Kitschoff, Koch, Snyman, Mostert, Louw, H Jantjies, Steyn



Venue: Yokohama
Referee:
AR1:
AR2:
TMO:

[Gooseberry]

Gatland didn't manage the squad well and that has cost them as they were more than capable of beating SA.

There is an article in the Times (Steve James ex Glamorgan cricketer) that suggests Gatland has in the 12 years helped Wales to overperform, and that with the resources available to them there is no way they should be making RWC semis. It talks about the number of players, praises Gats for building a level of depth but states that there is not the depth that other countries may have and bemoans regional performances.

I think a lot of that is fair, and Gatland has done a pretty awesome job getting Wales to where they are now.

Yep and it’s another reason why Gatland should be held in higher regard, but more often than not he is shown nothing but contempt. I hope he goes well with Chiefs.

I think its partly his persona, although hes cut the trolling down recently. the Lions tour to NZ made it much harder to downplay his coaching even for non Wales fans. To hold his job that long is testament to how hard Wales would find to get an big hitter to replace him even when there were dips. And now you get Pivac....He could work, but its a tough act to follow when you have little pedigree.

[mikey_dragon]

I can't remember if Biggar or Patchell was the fly half in that long string of phases that ended with the Adams try, but thought that told a lot of the story about the game

Wales didn't really look like they were ever going to punch through the defensive lines with the forward pick and go game, and it never really looked like the ball was going to come out to the backs, even when there was a hint of an overlap. Maybe a more creative fly half (Anscombe?) would have forced the issue and demanded the ball there

I know Wales scored anyway off the scrum, but how much did 20 odd phases of pick and drive take out of the forwards - I do think Wales backs would have managed to score given how narrow the SA defensive line was, and it may have meant there was a bit more energy left in the Welsh forwards legs to try and get back down the field again later on

Might be overthinking it, but that really felt like a key few minutes in the game even though Wales did score

I think you are talking about the long passage of pressure Wales had inside the SA 22, I was thinking similarly, they could have gone wider much earlier, the defence on the SA left side was extremely narrow.

That’s just Gatland’s way of playing though, very direct. He’d be a perfect SA coach. In fairness Wales playing that way does work against most teams including SA, it nearly did again but didn’t. Personally I don’t think it’s the right call against the Springboks as it’s their bread and butter. I was surprised to see we had the heavier pack but literally no idea where that 16kg advantage came from, especially considering we have a lighter back-row than most.

[BamBam]

Yeah I guess it is his way of playing. Just wondering whether the fly half could have called the play looking at it heads up, I think the commentary said there was a big overlap at one stage too

[Guest]

I can't remember if Biggar or Patchell was the fly half in that long string of phases that ended with the Adams try, but thought that told a lot of the story about the game

Wales didn't really look like they were ever going to punch through the defensive lines with the forward pick and go game, and it never really looked like the ball was going to come out to the backs, even when there was a hint of an overlap. Maybe a more creative fly half (Anscombe?) would have forced the issue and demanded the ball there

I know Wales scored anyway off the scrum, but how much did 20 odd phases of pick and drive take out of the forwards - I do think Wales backs would have managed to score given how narrow the SA defensive line was, and it may have meant there was a bit more energy left in the Welsh forwards legs to try and get back down the field again later on

Might be overthinking it, but that really felt like a key few minutes in the game even though Wales did score

Maybe, but it would have been suicide if Wales had taken this tactic.

It's very simple - Wales were dominated 1 to 15 in contact. Only Jake Ball really got over the gainline. Practically every Welsh player was smashed whenever they carried or tackled, and Wales had to put big numbers in to secure ball, work harder than SA to get the same results.

So what would play on the back foot do? It would mean a 1 on 1, getting caught behind the gainline, smashed and, in all likelihood, rucked over and turned over, and then SA play on the counter attack.

Which is their precise tactic. They did exactly this against Japan - wait for Japan to fall on their sword, overplay, get isolated or turned over or knock it on from forcing it under physical pressure, and then score from turnover ball.

Case in point:



Wales played unbelievably well considering they were dominated physically all game. They competed well in the set piece, but ultimately lost; it was the breakdown where they were most impressive. One or two turnovers - and sadly, that was never going to come from Garces - in the Boks' half would have been ideal. But SA knew to not play in their own half out of respect/fear of Biggar's boot.

We're way beyond the days of a 'creative' 10 mitigating weaknesses elsewhere. A running 10 like Anscombe would likely have meant Wales lost the game a lot earlier than the 76th minute, and a lot more comprehensively than by 3 points, if it meant we tried to overplay on the back foot.

Ultimately, Wales scored a try from turning down 2 consecutive kickable penalties. They executed for minutes on end, ruck after ruck, and then scored. I'm not sure I've seen a more impressive - and uncharacteristic - Welsh try to be honest.

As I said, that was almost a masterclass in how to play controlled rugby on the backfoot while being dominated. Yes, it's not as flashy or creative as Japan - but guess what, Japan's tactics were a flash in the pan. They get worked out quickly once their systems of creativity come apparent - then it's about shutting down the weak parts of the system. Because there are so many 'links' that need to happen to allow Japan's creative attacking play to work, there's more to nullify, more to pick apart, more to attack, and more to go wrong - and that ultimately happened in the QF.

Wales' tactics are boring and so the fans hate it, but guess what? They're better. They work, and have worked for years - Gatland has barely changed the fundamentals and yet, still, he's turned the Lions and Wales in to formidable, grinding, winning machines that punch above their weight and their weaknesses.

Basically, you're not overthinking it, you're underthinking it. Wales' failure was in the last 7 minutes. You can pick that apart, but they played the game to stay in touch with SA, to mitigate their weaknesses, and then, ideally, win the game. Looking back now I think this one will get tougher as time goes by as despite that physical imbalance, the game was there to be won - but not by a 'creative' 10 or by running it through the backs. We had 2 half injured centres, an inexperienced centre on the wing, a 15 who doesn't really attack...and we're physically smaller, weaker, and slower than all or most of SA's most dangerous players.

There was no sense in overplaying and moving it wide. If we were 15 points down, then yep, that's what we would have started doing. But Gatland, again, got the tactics right - it's just our strike moves didn't pay off first half, North going off killed the opportunity of real threat from first phase, Liam not being there was terminal in terms of a the 'magic' sometimes needed in broken field, and fine margins in those last few minutes when we had the ball in their half and set up for the drop goal proved decisive. We went from a lineout just outside or even on their 22, going through the phases, and got pushed back each time - as the commentary said, it was clever play by Wales, keeping it central all the time in case of a penalty by SA. Unfortunately, against nearly all other opponents, if Wales had parity of power, just grinding through the phases and making or getting over the gainline, that tactic and that position almost certainly results in points. Instead, it meant a drop from 45m that was always an outside hope.

The thing it, it's not the tactics: the tactics there were spot on - keep it central, work them right to left and back again to try and run at unsettled defence, and then set up for the drop goal to get the lead. The tactics weren't wrong, it was that the players weren't strong enough; and the solution to that is play it wide, off slow ball, behind the gainline against a blitz defence with a team that deliberately sets up to counter attack with blistering pace on their wings?

No. Obviously that's a silly suggestion.

[Barney McGrew did it]

I also think Gats would do well as SA coach - surprised not more people have suggested it.

[Guest]

JD2, Parkes & Biggar all played like guys carrying knocks (which they were).

It was a shame for Wales that they ended up with so many injury issues - but arguably it was exacerbated by not applying enough rotation. Parkes for example started 3/4 warm ups and all 6 world cup games.

Yep. Big error in hindsight.

England winning at Twickenham hurt Wales - and may have contributed to knocking them out. It meant Gatland focused on the winning streak and the 1st place ranking and 'backed up' at the MS and made sure Wales won the game with the same side he picked at Twickenham, but surprisingly lost.

That then meant they lost 2 games to the Irish, which wasn't ideal, instead of 1. It also meant not enough options were sought for in other key positions. If Watkin has been the hope for a while - as he appears to have been - he absolutely should have started 3-4 games at 12 and/or 13 when you consider we had 4 warm ups, and then two relative 'gimmes' against Georgia and Uruguay. 6 games to try things out and, as you say, he picked Parkes to start in all but 1 of those games, with Watkin starting a grand total of 2 games - 1 v Ireland in the weakened team, and once v Uruguay. I'm adamant Scott Williams should have gone and been in that side, and as we saw yesterday, sometimes it's simply a case of pace and power to make a bit of a difference. That's what he brings.

It's also poor luck - and a sign of how Wales play - that we suffered injuries elsewhere, starting 12 months ago with Ellis Jenkins (and maybe Warburton last summer as well). But there's been a glaring issue at 12 for a while and you have to question how Scott Williams feels, particularly as Pivac isn't much of a fan either but will surely include him more than Gatland has - he didn't want to lose him to the Ospreys in the first place.

[123456789.]

I also think Gats would do well as SA coach - surprised not more people have suggested it.

Think the South Africans tend to be quite parochial in their rugby outlook. Which they can afford to be as they’re usually bloody good and they have a lot of rugby people. There was an issue in 2007 about Eddie Jones being allowed to coach but not allowed a blazer or something silly.

[Guest]

I read something that the SA'n coach is the third most important man in the country in terms of public perception - behind the President and the Minister for Sport. Not a glib decision to bring an outsider in - but imagine Old Man could tell us more.

[Taylorman]

The way I see it Taylorman is that its NZs forwards that arent as dominant as they used to be. They are still good but teams with good packs will get the odd win against them.

NZ used to be quite dominant in the lineout and breakdown in particular and at times in the scrum. I didnt see mich of this dominance at this RWC or in the lead up.

Yeah possibly, though they seemed to do ok vs SA, who are in final, and Ireland, who they beat easily. I think the approach was soft against England, in thinking they were going to carry on their merry way to score tries as they did Ireland, and negated the breakdowns, collisions, ability to recycle ball, all of which England disrupted as the core part of their game plan. So agree with that in terms of the approach. Seems we thought, we don’t need to engage, we just need to spin the ball and score tries.

I don’t think we were beaten at scrum or lineout time in any big way, even scoring our try of a poor English lineout. In the end England scored one try and won by 12. Not a massive thumping and on another day was winnable with the right players and tactics, more attention to the contact areas.

But overall? You might be right. We’ll find that out in the wash up. It may be that NZs insistence of having a mobile tight five has over time made them go soft, or neglect the set piece, contact areas so to speak.

Again, brings me back to Gats, could address that area as coach.

[Old Man]

I would say the Springbok coach is the most challenging job in South Africa.

SARU in the past decade were under pressure to prove transformation, and because they weren’t transforming enough players they decided to appoint coaches as part of their proof there is transformation.

I suspect after Allister Coetzee they have come to realise the Coach is the most important job to be successful.

So hopefully considering that and the fact that Rassie has proven it isn’t impossible to transform SA rugby representation they won’t fall into that trap again.

But then you have to consider the administrators at SARU often do window dressing to save their own behinds.

The pressure to provide results is huge on a Springbok coach, especially from the traditional rugby community, so it is a good thing that rugby is finally being transformed to represent more of the country.

There are things Rassie has done in his short stint that has made a massive impact on uniting South Africans by appointing Kolisi as his captain.

There are a number of you appearances Kolisi and his wife have made on television and some are available on youtube.

Kolisi married Rachel Smith, I think she was the team physio? they adopted his siblings and have attained somewhat of an iconic status in SA.

Through his appointment you see many more Africans walking around with Springbok jerseys, there are more going on tour to watch rugby, so Rassie has had a wider impact than just rugby.

[Guest]

Thanks Old Man. Interesting. Unique situation in rugby, no doubt.

[Heaf]

Video doing the rounds now on twitter of a S.African player punching Welsh player in the maul; repeatedly too (3 punches thrown I believe) ..obviously missed by ref and TMO in game but definitely suspect will be flagged now and suspect whoever it was is missing the final.

Did anything ever come of this?

[Sponsored content]