[2017 RBS Six Nations] Round 2: Wales vs England (11/02/2017)

[ratsapprentice]

Predictable response from an Englishman watching a welsh rugby publication. BBC Wales caters to the welsh audience just like THE BEEB caters to the English. If it irritates you that much then don't watch it, Simples...

Gotta agree with that /\ - it's a Welsh tv production. It shouldn't be any more surprising that they focus on Wales, than French tv focussing on France.

 

[Maverick1987]

Predictable response from an Englishman watching a welsh rugby publication. BBC Wales caters to the welsh audience just like THE BEEB caters to the English. If it irritates you that much then don't watch it, Simples...

Don't invite Englishmen on there and then just shout them down for an hour that's my opinion and let's be honest it wouldn't be half as bad if the Welsh didn't constantly complain about how biased our press is ..... if there was an English production that was this shamelessly biased against everything non English there would be uproar ....

 

[ThebigARena]

Don't invite Englishmen on there and then just shout them down for an hour that's my opinion and let's be honest it wouldn't be half as bad if the Welsh didn't constantly complain about how biased our press is ..... if there was an English production that was this shamelessly biased against everything non English there would be uproar ....

But you are the one complaining not me, you see I understand that the beeb caters for England as much as I understand that BBC Scotland caters for the scots so it should be no real surprise that BBC Wales caters for the welsh population, Ive watched it and I really don't see what your problem is? obviously the opinion will be bias towards Wales a bit, and I wouldn't worry about vickery I'm sure he can hold his own.

 

[Maverick1987]

But you are the one complaining not me, you see I understand that the beeb caters for England as much as I understand that BBC Scotland caters for the scots so it should be no real surprise that BBC Wales caters for the welsh population, Ive watched it and I really don't see what your problem is? obviously the opinion will be bias towards Wales a bit, and I wouldn't worry about vickery I'm sure he can hold his own.

Fair enough . Maybe I'm more ****** off that we don't do it ! Haha Robshaw was just on TV being literally the nicest bloke in the world and spent most of his time taking about how good Wales were and how fast Daly is

 

[ThebigARena]

Fair enough . Maybe I'm more ****** off that we don't do it ! Haha Robshaw was just on TV being literally the nicest bloke in the world and spent most of his time taking about how good Wales were and how fast Daly is

Good thought, why don't England do a version of scrum v? maybe your not as self indulgent as us Welsh

 

[Maverick1987]

Good thought, why don't England do a version of scrum v? maybe your not as self indulgent as us Welsh

Haha I actually really like scrum V tbh . Just not when Wales play England haha ! The look on Gwyn Jones' face when he knew the answer to the question was England won the game with a great play at the end but all he did was stuttered then let Jiffy take over ... I thought he was going to spontaneously combust ! Haha

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Predictable response from an Englishman watching a welsh rugby publication. BBC Wales caters to the welsh audience just like THE BEEB caters to the English. If it irritates you that much then don't watch it, Simples...

My only issue with this is that the BBC One coverage was also heavily biased towards Wales.

Note Brian Moore having to remind Jonathan Davies to be at least slightly neutral- speaking of Moore, he was unusually quiet. You'd normally back him to bring balance to a pair of Welsh commentators.

 

[ThebigARena]

I think that's a being a little short sighted. To blame our loss on AWJ going for the try instead of the posts may have a little truth, but it was far from the biggest issue imo. It's akin to blaming the ref for disallowing a legitimate try for a loss, even though there were plenty of other opportunities to win the match. The biggest issue yesterday was that we were camped in the English 22 for the entirely of the 3rd quarter, yet failed to score a single point. Coaching is a big issue with this, although I actually thought that our attacking patterns in were pretty good at times yesterday, managing to isolate Ford and send players down his channel + getting players free on the outside. However when we got into the red-zone, there was no clear direction from 10, and the forwards started getting a little carried away with the pick & go's. Biggar just never seems to direct play like a 10 should in these positions, that's true be it for the Ospreys or Wales.

The amount of try's the Ospreys have scored this season directly from a Sam Davies pass has been huge. The forwards play off him, with the likes of Cracknell punching big holes by running on his shoulder. In contrast, when the Welsh forwards carry the ball, they are either static, or easy to read, thus not challenging the defense like it should.

Whilst Biggar has been a fine player for us during a period when we had no other options, imo he fails at the primary role of outside half play, being a playmaker. We wouldn't stand for a hooker being unable to throw into a lineout, or a prop unable to scrummage, even if they were defensive demons. If all we want from our 10 is a player that can tackle, then slot Jamie Roberts in at 10 and be done with it. I don't remember Dan Carter ever being praised for a performance based on his defensive interventions, because that wasn't his role. He was tasked with controlling the game, and making sure the AB's scored try's. He wasn't a liability in defense, and that's all that's needed really from a 10.

Sam Davies' two big strengths are in controlling a game (his kicking from hand is varied and accurate) and his attacking play (he's a threat ball in hand, and his distribution game puts others in space). I've seen nothing to suggest that his defense would be a liability at international level, whilst his goal kicking has been on par with Biggar's this season at the Ospreys. The only question mark's surround his experience, yet he's made a difference every time he's stepped onto the field for Wales, and he's been superior to Biggar at the Ospreys this season (if we aren't going to judge the form of players by their regional performances, then what else do we use?).

Howley (and Gatland) have been far to conservative with their selections and tactics. If we want to improve, then both need adjusting. We're already two years into the 4 year wc cycle, and we've learn't very little in that time. Other teams in comparison have managed to completely re-invent themselves. About time we experimented a little.

Don't think in anyway am I against the notion of sam davies coming into the fh position, I like you want to see our pressure turned into points and increase our creativity but you are being a bit short sighted by focusing the lack of tries in the 22 down to biggar. I thought biggar had a great game yesterday and no its not a 10s job to defend but it bloody helps when your under the cosh and you got a player like dan who literally puts his body on the line, not only does he make try saving tackles but you are underestimating his ability to read the game , he also does a good job of getting in the refs ear! would sam of made that important interception yesterday when England were camped on our try line? its all up for debate but what isn't is that biggar is our best starting option at this moment and I hope sam does get some game time in the Scottish fixture , impact off the bench which I can see being vital in that game in 2 weeks.

- - - Updated - - -

My only issue with this is that the BBC One coverage was also heavily biased towards Wales.

Note Brian Moore having to remind Jonathan Davies to be at least slightly neutral- speaking of Moore, he was unusually quiet. You'd normally back him to bring balance to a pair of Welsh commentators.

Ha yes the mercurial Jiffy, I will admit he is heavily biased and gets carried away which I understand must be highly annoying to English ears, I just find him comical, he's harmless really

I like moore he is a very fair and balanced commentator.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

- - - Updated - - -



Ha yes the mercurial Jiffy, I will admit he is heavily biased and gets carried away which I understand must be highly annoying to English ears, I just find him comical, he's harmless really

I like moore he is a very fair and balanced commentator.

Have just spotted your profile picture. You are Jonathan Davies and I claim my £5.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Haha I actually really like scrum V tbh . Just not when Wales play England haha ! The look on Gwyn Jones' face when he knew the answer to the question was England won the game with a great play at the end but all he did was stuttered then let Jiffy take over ... I thought he was going to spontaneously combust ! Haha

I have seen Scrum V a few times and accept it will be inherently biased. The only bit I didn't like was where they said did England win or did Wales lose? That is pretty disrespectful and then the analysis completely ignored anything England did bar the final try (Ben Youngs try didn't even get mentioned). I can accept it is a Welsh program but come on... The commentary from the sofas though was decent and I disagree that they shouted down Vickery, they didn't. He was allowed to have his say without interruption.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Overall none of this goes to prove that impressions from the game were wrong - it doesn't mean Hughes was suddenly great and Haskell was terrible, that's clearly not the case. But I do think it's relevant to consider the stage of the game. Hughes' ineffectiveness was not about metres gained so much as the neatness of ball presentation, and also the complete absence of an offloading game which is part of what he offers at Wasps.

Rugby knowledgeable will see this as "Hughes was not supported." The bloke carried like a champion time after time into the teeth of an angry defensive line and he did it without any support on his hip.
Where was the much vaunted English no.7, the wonder child?
Was he even on the pitch?
In NZ , after a performance like that at openside flanker, there would have been a public flogging.
AWOL is a crime in the armed forces.

This is the issue I raised earlier and was poo-poohed by a couple of the regulars here (Raggs and TommiG88) who like to talk as though they understand rugby but they really haven't got a clue.
Hughes was the only carrier of note for England throughout the first half. He made plenty of yards and demanded at least two tacklers. He did surprisingly well against an aggressive defence and he didn't back off or shirk his duties, however, his good efforts were largely nullified because the 6 and 7 were far too slow off the ruck or the scrum to support him and 10 and 12 were standing too far back to run at his hip when he has a chance to offload before he goes to ground under a mountain of red jerseys.
So thats the first five (Farrell) the second five (Ford), the blindside flanker (Itoje) and the openside flanker (Rip van Winkle), who failed to support Hughes. Itoje can be forgiven to an extent because he is only a young fella and he was playing out of position, the other three have no excuse.
There were opportunities for Hughes to release the ball before going to ground but with nobody supporting him the safest option was to go to ground and hope the cavalry might finally wake up and wander over before Tipuric and co. were able to turn over the pill.
The Welsh back row are good but they were made to look better because England were not supporting the runner.

When Haskell was carrying late in the game it felt as though we had momentum,

Haskell was carrying when England were on attack and had introduced their fresh bench. England had regained the momentum, not purely through Haskell and he was watched very closely. Howley had taken off his best players (Moriarty and Webb- go figure) and brought on players returning from injury (Faletau). Haskell came on at the prime time but was less effective this week than the previous one against France.

"Haskell was running into space / shoulders. We were producing quicker ball, partly because of his presentation of the ball from the carry but also I think Wales weren't able to commit as many to the tackle as they had earlier. I think Hughes got drawn into thinking he could outmuscle the Welsh pack and was almost overly looking for the contact rather than the space.

Thats a naive assessment. Hughes was following orders but the support wasn't forthcoming. Haskell is slower than Hughes and he came on when the Welsh were tiring. I like Haskell but I find his speed is a wee bit lacking at international level and he seems quite ponderous. (Remember, there's a reason Eddie doesn't start him. ;-) ) He makes up for this by being an enormous lump who often requires two tacklers and Eddie doesn't wheel him out like a howitzer until the opposition are tiring.
Hughes in contrast is (admittedly younger) quick (and fearless) and he can offload as his time in Auckland and Wasps will show however this new kid Clifford was half asleep for the whole game.

What is the point of having a 7 who can't get to the breakdown first?
Opensides who lounge about should be burned at the stake.
Guys like McCaw or Pocock (or Neil Back and Richard Hill if you like) would have had a field day running on Nathan Hughes' hip. England simply were appalling at supporting the runner off the back of the set piece (particularly the scrum and maul) and that is what made Hughes look like he was running one off.

Was he supposed to hang around until prospective supporting players woke up and started to move? Really? Because in that time the Welsh defensive line would be rolling forward and they would have the impetus and momentum. Hughes backed himself and hoped his team mates would arrive before the southern rail delayed express.

My other impression was that he often seemed isolated from his pack mates, [DoH! read the explanation] as if he just wasn't on the same wavelength. [His wavelength was too fast for his laborious team mates. English support was pedestrian.]
There certainly wasn't enough supported carrying taking place.

Thank you Sherlock, sheeesh.
Well, you got there in the end.

 

[Raggs]

Hughes is quick, I don't know if he's that much quicker than Hask though, Hask get's unfairly maligned, but it's with good reason that he played 7s well. He runs with an exceptionally odd style, but he can shift.

Please let us know in which carries you feel that Hughes could have offloaded had someone been on his shoulder. It's easy to just wave your arms and claim it, please give us minute on the clock of when it was really on had someone been on hand.

I've already moaned about Clifford not getting to the breakdown fast enough, or effectively enough, from the scrum. Most people here have said he had a pretty poor game.

Hughes hasn't been offloading anywhere near as much with Wasps as the seasons have gone on, his role has changed a great deal, and he's rarely in a position where the offload is the sensible decision.

Glad to see I'm a regular though, you're obviously just some poor newbie who's getting picked on... with 3 times as many posts and has been posted for 2 years longer...

 

[The Jones Boy]

Hughes is quick, I don't know if he's that much quicker than Hask though,

At international level it's a given that everyone is quick, or you wouldn't make the squad, it's about that little bit extra, not large margins. That little bit that separates the cream at the top from the good stuff just underneath.

Please let us know in which carries you feel that Hughes could have offloaded had someone been on his shoulder.

There's more to it than just this...
How many times did Hughes charge the opposing line with nobody on his hip. Not a single inside or outside runner in the frame?
Everytime?
My argument is based on solid rugby principles; if you don't have runners on the hip you make it easier for the defensive line to tackle the runner because there won't be any doubt in their minds about the inside runner coming up fast to receive the pill and charge past them. They can then gang tackle Hughes everytime.
Getting a supporting runner in there makes the defensive line think about the dangers, they can't simply elect to put three players into the gang tackle and try for the turn over which guarantees slow ball to England if it comes back at all... and all of a sudden Hughes might only have one tackler to deal with instead of 2 or 3 and then opportunities for a sneaky offload or a clean line break start to open up.
If he does get tackled then the supporting runner is there to assist him in getting quick clean ball out for the next phase that creates a momentum and you might get a roll on.

If you don't support the runner you hang him out to dry. You also strengthen the defensive line because you are only asking one question.
This is basic stuff mate.

 

[Peat]

Ford - another pretty poor game [b[behind a beaten pack.[/b] However, if your flyhalf is playing **** behind a been pack then unlike some I believe your problem is not your flyhalf

We had pretty much equal territory, possession, carries and tackles, except that we carried for an extra 98m. We won all our mauls and one of theirs, nicked one of their scrums while winning all of ours and all of our lineouts too, and their forwards conceded 7 penalties to our 4. Did give away more turnovers though.

I didn't see a beaten pack play and I don't see one looking at the stats either.

I also thought Ford had a pretty good game. One poor kick-off (which Daly rescued), one wonky up and under, one pass behind Farrell (who was able to rescue it and give it anyway) and that was it. The rest of his game was sweet sweet passing to men looking at soft shoulders. As for his defence - yes he conceded yards, but he also made a number of key tackles (Webb when he forward passes to Biggar, Scott Williams with a sorta overlap (doesn't complete tackle though but does enough), Jon Davies when there's no ruck guards) and I don't recall him conceding any line breaks.

Tbh, I thought most of our guys had acceptable to good games at least. Even Hartley. Maybe not Clifford and Brown. The big ugly exception is Ben Youngs and even he did some good stuff amid the big ugly eye-catching game killing mistakes from hell. Forgot Hartley was meant to be guarding Youngs for that box-kick, maybe not him either. England bossed the first and last quarters of the game, and I think there's a bit of overreaction to a few big hits and how long we had to wait to win it.

 

[Ospreylian]

Haha I actually really like scrum V tbh . Just not when Wales play England haha ! The look on Gwyn Jones' face when he knew the answer to the question was England won the game with a great play at the end but all he did was stuttered then let Jiffy take over ... I thought he was going to spontaneously combust ! Haha

I think the quality of Scrum V varies episode to episode based on who the guests are. I rarely agree with Gwyn Jones, but (say what you like about him) Jiffy is one of the better regulars. He is often fair to the other teams and more often than not brutally honest about Wales. Jeremy Guscott is another good guest who gives credit where credit is due. I quite like Alfie when he appears too, but I feel he sometimes goes hunting for audience approval.


I don't get people who criticize Scrum V for focusing mainly on Wales. It's a show made in Wales for Welsh rugby fans, so that's a given. My main criticism of Scrum V is that whenever the Wales v England episode airs they always overdo the old 'as long as we beat the English we don't care' joke. It just gets a little stale.

 

[Maverick1987]

I think the quality of Scrum V varies episode to episode based on who the guests are. I rarely agree with Gwyn Jones, but (say what you like about him) Jiffy is one of the better regulars. He is often fair to the other teams and more often than not brutally honest about Wales. Jeremy Guscott is another good guest who gives credit where credit is due. I quite like Alfie when he appears too, but I feel he sometimes goes hunting for audience approval.


I don't get people who criticize Scrum V for focusing mainly on Wales. It's a show made in Wales for Welsh rugby fans, so that's a given. My main criticism of Scrum V is that whenever the Wales v England episode airs they always overdo the old 'as long as we beat the English we don't care' joke. It just gets a little stale.

I thought Jiffy was really good on yesterday's show tbh and I do generally like him . I was a bit disappointed they didn't show any of the other 2 games yesterday though . I know it's only an hours show and it's a Welsh show so the Welsh game gets priority though so never mind . Luckily I recorded the highlights show on ITV too

 

[AzaMatt]

Good thought, why don't England do a version of scrum v? maybe your not as self indulgent as us Welsh

Rugby tonight on BT sport is pretty much just that.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

It means they often get away with it.
If the ball touches a hand, and goes forwards from that HND, making contact with the ground, it's a knock on, controlled or otherwise.

If the ball is on the ground, you can out a hand on it to stabilise it, you can roll it backwards; but rolling it forwards is a knock on.

Thanks Tyler...I can honestly say, a la South Park, that I've learnt something today! Shame the benefits of my new knowledge are overshadowed by the intense feeling of stupidity...

I live in Wales so was watching Scrum V earlier and the bias was worse than I've ever seen .... Ross Harries, Sara Elgin and Gwyn Jones took it in turns to shout down Phil Vickery if he dared mention an England player whilst spending at least 20 minutes of the hour long program talking about Ross Moriarty (who I agreed was brilliant) then 10 minutes talking about Biggar and 5 talking about Sam Davies then showed the Welsh Pro 12 teams before finishing the program without even showing the Scotland Vs France or the Ireland vs Italy games before finishing up by saying Wales lost the game England didn't win it ..... FML who's funding this **** ......

I normally would agree with you, except I also watched this and thought Phil Vickery was quite embarrassing - interrupting the others to make barely related points. I agree it's level of bias can be astounding but I think that once you accept that its produced for a Welsh audience and them the rules, it becomes less irritating.

At international level it's a given that everyone is quick, or you wouldn't make the squad, it's about that little bit extra, not large margins. That little bit that separates the cream at the top from the good stuff just underneath.



There's more to it than just this...
How many times did Hughes charge the opposing line with nobody on his hip. Not a single inside or outside runner in the frame?
Everytime?
My argument is based on solid rugby principles; if you don't have runners on the hip you make it easier for the defensive line to tackle the runner because there won't be any doubt in their minds about the inside runner coming up fast to receive the pill and charge past them. They can then gang tackle Hughes everytime.
Getting a supporting runner in there makes the defensive line think about the dangers, they can't simply elect to put three players into the gang tackle and try for the turn over which guarantees slow ball to England if it comes back at all... and all of a sudden Hughes might only have one tackler to deal with instead of 2 or 3 and then opportunities for a sneaky offload or a clean line break start to open up.
If he does get tackled then the supporting runner is there to assist him in getting quick clean ball out for the next phase that creates a momentum and you might get a roll on.

If you don't support the runner you hang him out to dry. You also strengthen the defensive line because you are only asking one question.
This is basic stuff mate.

You can't always have support runners as number 8. Off the back of the scrum he should have done better, mostly because he was trying to hard to win individual contacts, altering his body position to try and run over individual defenders. He was brought down too easily on those occasions. I agree that supported carrying would have resulted in better outcomes but I'm not convinced that on those occasions where he failed to make much ground that this was the main reason. I agree on the wider point that he may be getting slightly unjust stick for his overall performance.


On another note I saw the post=match interview with Webb and his comment about being taken off at 65 minutes made it abundantly clear to me that there is some division in the Wales camp, I thought he did nothing whatsoever do disguise dis disagreement with Howleys decision, probably fuelled not just by his own substitution but that if Moriarty which is being widely condemned.

 

[Peat]

Webb spent so long looking at the ball when it was in the England 22 around the 57th minute mark that I honestly thought he reckoned it was actually an egg and he was waiting to see if it hatched. Was no bueno.

Also, on rewatch and having looked at the stats, I totally agree with the decision to sub Moriarty. Wales were struggling to convert opportunities and part of the reason was their carriers weren't going great. An 8 with 11 carries for 11 metres is usually considered pretty culpable there.

Course, it doesn't help that Faletau only made 1 metre in his 5... oops. Maybe not that match fit enough? Or maybe a victim of Webb waiting for the entire English line to reset (hyperbole)?

 

[ncurd]

On waiting for an egg to hatch isn't Youngs slightly culpable for the same offence in regards to the Biggar intercept. I'm fairly certain part of the reason that play failed was because everyone was set up for it for an age before he whipped the ball out so it was an easy read for Biggar. Also helped Biggar didn't really have much choice it would of been a try had he not tried anything.

Still at least it means probably Murray starting for the Lions.