And Wigglesworth showing why he was such a **** poor sub. England subs are supposed to up the tempo, he actively slowed it down all the time.
And Wigglesworth showing why he was such a **** poor sub. England subs are supposed to up the tempo, he actively slowed it down all the time.
Yeah; would've actually made more sense to start him and bring Care off the bench.And Wigglesworth showing why he was such a **** poor sub. England subs are supposed to up the tempo, he actively slowed it down all the time.
Hahahaha!
I bet on England not concedingYES
I had England to win with two trys didn't think it would be like that though.
Garces was just ****.
It's not like Wales was the only one to get away with it. Robshaw was often offside, Itoje dived over the ball constantly and not to mention staying on the line at the lineout.
I'm about to read the last 15 pages of this shitshow!
England won, cause they were better. IN THE FIRST HALF
Wales have moments of brilliance, but that doesn't win games. ENGLAND FAILED TO SCORE AFTER 15 MINS
Fierce defence from both teams
Anscombes try should of been allowed, but that's not a deciding factor, if could've galvanised either team. AWJ class in his interview. YES IT SHOULD HAVE!
England's kicking was great for 75% of the time, the rest of the time it was pointless. When we built phases we looked good. Lacking a carrier, but we can still win games.
Finally, Engands penalty count is embarrassing. We need a breakdown specialist in there...
Huh?Good contest with the English power showing for the majority of the first fifty and the Welsh fitness in the last 30. Felt the Anscombe effort should've been given and if so, there's a conversion chance for the W. Not so shabby for a largely inexperienced group who probably wouldn't have made the squad if everyone had remained fit for the last 12 months.
Well played England... that Underhill dive and roll was box office stuff.
Huh?
How would Anscomb's try have given Wales the win?
Subtract 3 and add 7, and Wales still lose.
It should have been given, but doesn't change the result, not even enough to say the match position would have changed etc etc.(IMO)
And that's assuming they convert it, which considering how far out it was is far from a given.Huh?
How would Anscomb's try have given Wales the win?
Subtract 3 and add 7, and Wales still lose.
It should have been given, but doesn't change the result, not even enough to say the match position would have changed etc etc.(IMO)
Huh?
How would Anscomb's try have given Wales the win?
Subtract 3 and add 7, and Wales still lose.
It should have been given, but doesn't change the result, not even enough to say the match position would have changed etc etc.(IMO)
Huh?
How would Anscomb's try have given Wales the win?
Subtract 3 and add 7, and Wales still lose.
It should have been given, but doesn't change the result, not even enough to say the match position would have changed etc etc.(IMO)
I'm about to read the last 15 pages of this shitshow!
England won, cause they were better.
Wales have moments of brilliance, but that doesn't win games.
Fierce defence from both teams
Anscombes try should of been allowed, but that's not a deciding factor, if could've galvanised either team. AWJ class in his interview.
England's kicking was great for 75% of the time, the rest of the time it was pointless. When we built phases we looked good. Lacking a carrier, but we can still win games.
Finally, Engands penalty count is embarrassing. We need a breakdown specialist in there...