Wales: How do we turn this around?

[Ospreylian]

You're bringing two different era's together here. The Expansive Wales years were year ago, the years around the 2005 Grand Slam standing out to my memory... last year when we got bummed by them they were on top in most areas of the field... the tries they scored however to my memory were scintillating counter-attacks. We weren't overwhelmed by expansive rugby. Expansive rugby in and of itself is not hard-wired into their game plan and hasn't been for years as far as I can see.

Agreed. Wales haven't been that sort of team since about 2008. Even then, the player who instigated most of those moves was Shane Williams.

The 2005 team thrived on playing an expansive, wing-to-wing flair attacking game, primarily because the players available to them suited this game plan (guys like Shane, Dwayne Peel, Henson, Gareth Thomas, Kevin Morgan, Shanklin etc..). The attack worked because those players would try anything and everything to try and break a defense, and they offloaded like nobody's business. But there were arguably other flaws to that team (i.e. defense), and some claimed there had been an element of luck to the Grand Slam.

Nowadays, Wales base their game primarily on a solid defense, and just weather the storm on most occasions until they find a brief moment from which to attack/counter-attack. Think back to the Wales v England game in 2012 - a very tense encounter, both teams matching each other, until within the last ten minutes when Scott Williams ripped the ball from Courtney Lawes to chip through and score. A great solo counter-attacking move, and one that suits this Welsh side perfectly in my eyes. It's just it falls flat when they come up against a team that, on the day, outclasses them in every set-piece and aspect of the game (Ireland on Saturday).

 

[Peat]

I don't think we can just say Gatland ball is dead now, it's been exposed, game over, let's look for smt else and forget about everything. The RWC is in a year and maybe they can experiment like France has been doing with a select few players, but there's no way obviously they should change more than that, and God forbid the idea of changing the culture of the team.
Not too many teams will be able to contain Wales' power like Ireland has on that day.

I disagree. If you look at the best teams (i.e. SANZAR) they have proven time and time again that they will beat Gatland-ball and that they will contain the power.

The rest of the Six Nations struggles to do it on a regular basis, because we are not good enough, but that is changing. Wales can either stick with Gatland-ball and maybe win a couple more 6Ns before the game and the rest of us move on, with close to no hope of beating the SANZAR teams, or they can start changing.

As for plan B's and C's, are there really such things ? Aren't all teams conditioned/bound to play the one style they've been instilled ? How can Wales not play power Rugby ? What's a realistic, sustainable-for-a-whole-match approach at such a high level of int'l 6N Rugby ? you want to see Wales play like the Wallabies ? You want Wales to be clinical-forwards ruck-ruck-ruck like England ?

Yes there are and good teams will adjust on the fly. Ireland had three game plans to pick from depending on how things unfolded against Wales. Really good players will modify those as well. I think the Welsh should really consider going wide early as an option every now and again. Why not? Gatland-ball and the threat of Roberts drags players in narrow anyway. If your opponent is making those tackles, why not just send the ball wide and trust North, Davies and Cuthbert to make the line break that gets the ball rolling? Or tell Faletau to go seagull for a little?

 

[Big Ewis]

I think the Welsh should really consider going wide early as an option every now and again. Why not? Gatland-ball and the threat of Roberts drags players in narrow anyway. If your opponent is making those tackles, why not just send the ball wide and trust North, Davies and Cuthbert to make the line break that gets the ball rolling? Or tell Faletau to go seagull for a little?

because that's not the style, so they don't know how to as well as their standard plan. It's not like they can just all of a sudden go "hey guys, wanna play like the All-Blacks ? - Sure ! Let's do it, boys !". They only get so much time together so that they can perfect their gameplan and style of Rugby. They can't go out wide as a constant throughout a match because they'd commit knock-ons and handling errors the whole way.

Yes, OF COURSE teams can adjust somewhat to what's happening on the field, or flat-out rethink and tweak their gameplan ahead of a fixture; but teams don't just rock 3, 4 different styles in them they can just pop out at will.

Wales right now on attack are this:
European style, lots of rucks and one-pass/ruck movements, and occasionally they'll distribute in wider stretches to free up North all the way down on the wing who makes a break and then they go back inside when he's tackled, ruck, pass, ruck, so on...or a guy like Roberts at midfield makes a break, and idem.
Wales, like any team in the world, can't just change their culture entirely, that's ridiculous - not before a game, and most definitely not during a game. Sure you can adjust, but to minor things.

It's easy for us couch potatoes with our chips and beers and a$s scratching to criticize coaches like we'd know better. Yap a ton on online forums like we could give current 2-time champ Warren fkn Gatland a lesson.

But truth is, what do you *adapt* in that game ? mmm ? Ruck harder and punch POM in the balls so he's out for the game and stops collecting TO's at the BD, have a sniper in the crowd bring Sexton down so he'll stop making all those penalties and in-game strategic kicking, ask Kearny (politely) to stop being such a fundamentally rock-solid fullback, tell Healy he's hurting Adam Jones' feelings in the scrum and made Warburton cry too....be more creative on the attack as to pierce through the Irish defense....THEY CAN'T BE MORE CREATIVE, Wales can't stop being Wales, Wales can't be something else.

If you go to a Plan B, you're obviously not playing to all your strengths fully since it's your plan B, i.e. your SECOND option. They knew Ireland had:
- big defense
- a fine scrum now
- Sexton and his (in-game) kicking, that's not new is it ??
- mauls
- huge work rate at the breakdown (I mean you think they watched the one with the AB from Nov. ??)
- Kearney at FB.

They KNEW all that coming in, and NOTHING of all that was spared or modified. Guess who showed up when they played Ireland ??...IRELAND did. Yeah, no kidding. It's just that Ireland was much better on the day. End of story.

Got nothin to do with a Plan B, B12 Vitamin, X, Y, whatever - they just played their PLAN (call it A or B or anything you want) and they didn't play it right. Obviously an on-form Wales doesn't get thrashed 26-3, they just played this one, particularly, wrong.

 

[Peat]

Hmm, where to start...

Ok. Having multiple plans, being able to play the game in multiple ways, is not necessarily against a rugby team's culture and if it is, it's not being coached as well as it could be. The All Blacks can change plans. Schmidt's Leinster could change plans. Woodward's England could and did change plans. Multiple plans does not mean playing away from your strengths because most teams have a great many strengths and can choose which one to emphasise to exploit the opposition weakness. If a team's strengths are so one dimensional that it cannot do so then, again, I do not think they are being coached as well as they could be. I will repeat - good, well drilled teams can play several different ways on the rugby field and can execute them all. Examples are out there.

What do you adapt? Take your example of O'Mahony. You could tell Faletau to run directly at him. That way he has to make the tackle and can't contest that breakdown. You can then go wide off your next ball knowing he can't be in place to try poaching. Or you tell Lydiate to stand in midfield whenever you go wide so that whenever the ball gets there, there's a supporting player there so O'Mahony can't get in so quickly. Or tell Jon Davies to do the same thing.

Do you want an example of adaptability, of players changing their culture? Ulster choke-tackle all day long. Henry and Best in particular major in it. How many choke tackles did you see from the Ireland pack? They were cutting down players for the jackal. A different way of playing to adapted to nearly seamlessly.

TL;DR - when you say players and teams can't adapt, you're wrong.

 

[Big Ewis]

what you're saying about the IRE WAL game isn't a change in the culture of the team, it's part of the adapting that I mention. They just simply didn't play the rucks efficiently is basically what you're saying, in sense. I'm talking about a macroscopic change, and you a microscopic one.

I don't know the expression "choke tackle", but again same thing. Adapting. Bottom line: Wales just didn't contest the rucks hard enough, didn't defend the mauls with as much urgency as they should've and KNEW they were coming, didn't react to Sexton's play efficiently or studied it before the match or wtvr...all in all, they simply didn't play Ireland well, make the necessary adjustments I think we agree here it's just semantics after that.

If anybody is interested in bringing forth a true gameplan that is a true change in culture for Wales, that Gatland should've thought of, that this Welsh team really could follow REALISTICALLY, then please go ahead. Correct Warren Gatland and his failed Gatland ball. I'll quote him again as he said "What plan B or C, we didn't play our plan A well".
Obvious errors in the way Wales played surfaced but they just didn't play their game well enough. I think they underestimated Ireland, or got discouraged...they really looked very soft out there the whole way, in almost every sector.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

You're not differentiating between style and gameplan/strategy, Ewis. Nobody is suggesting Wales should abandon their strengths entirely. Ireland at the weekend showed how its possible to emphasise aspects of your game in favour of others. They are a team entirely capable of expansive rugby, considering their back-line, yet you didn't see that at all really.

You make it sound as if Wales are incapable of going wide earlier; they're not. It's not their 'style' which restricts that - it's a decision, made by the coaches in the build-up preparation and then replicated out there on the pitch by the players. The biggest general criticism you can make of Gatland is that he plays his game, rather than playing the opposition.

This is exemplified above all by selection policy. For the likes of Mike Philips, Gethin Jenkins, Dan Lydiate, Sam Warbuton, form and fitnesss are completely irrelevant factors. They will be picked regardless. You saw the same for the lions, even in the face of diverse options available to Gatland. And I would suggest that even though Gatland has hinted at making changes for France, he will not. He wants to kick his favourites up the arse and make them improve for the next game, which they will. I believe Wales will beat France at home simply by improving accuracy and discipline, and Gatland will be exonerated as he was in Australia with the lions. But what about after that, when you're not playing at home, when you're playing France away in a few years when they are more developed as a squad and perhaps with a better coach? As peat says, what about the Sanzar nations who we struggle to beat at the best of times. What about teams like Ireland and England who are improving?

In a nutshell I believe that the current Wales squad, with the current Gatland approach, has a lower ceiling then people will admit and that the raising of that ceiling is being hampered by obstinence and resistance to change. Wales DESPERATELY need a better starting 9 than Philips, quite badly need Biggar or A.N Other to be offered game time, and they should take very seriously getting Ashley Beck and Eli Walker involved in the squad in the future. As the captain, Sam Warbuton has often said its now about regularly beating the Sanzar sides but in my opinion such talk is premature.

 

[Big Ewis]

The biggest general criticism you can make of Gatland is that he plays his game, rather than playing the opposition.

isn't it weird you're replying to a guy you just called a clown and a bunch of other stuff just like two days ago ?

the quote I've selected basically sums it up. Terminology doesn't matter. The thought is all there, but also people imply that Wales played to the full extent of their potential, which is ridiculous. As Gatland said they didn't even "execute Plan A" correctly, let alone a plan B or C.
They should have made the right adjustments, for sure...but they also should have played with more heart. And it's hard not to admit they ought to have played Ireland smarter too...just an awful game for them.

The greater point I was trying to explain was that Gatland ball works still, and it's not because they sucked once that it's all over, and there is no "how do we turn this around ?" as the thread poses, or they urgently need to rethink their Rugby before the RWC, and this and that....and I don't think Gatland is as stubborn as we make him out to be: he's just looking for consistency with something that works more often than not, and again, that's won the last two 6N ***les.


About my World XV and the 9 position: I feel silly putting Phillips there now, especially after this game, but I'd seen some really good things and had dwelt on them. Seriously, nobody stands out, nobody. Very mediocre position in the world atm...

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I was in a bad mood, don't take it to heart.

Neither me or Peat would argue that Wales played to their full potential...

However I for one would argue that even if they do start playing Gatland ball to their potential, it isn't necessarily going to be enough to win as much of the time as Wales presumably want to win. For my money, you're implying, and you're not alone in it, that Gatland ball when executed properly is unbeatable - Gwyn Jones essentially said this a few weeks ago and completely reneged on that statement after losing to Ireland. You're also, whilst complimenting Ireland for their performance, treating Wales as instruments of their own downfall which is only half of the picture; It is very possible to make life hard for Wales, even if they play well; it's not always their own doing if teams do well against them.

E.G as Ospreylian pointed out, that England Wales game in 2012. Wales didn't play badly...they didn't execute Gatland ball badly...it just wasn't terribly effective if we're honest. What won them the game was something entirely different. You seem quite essentialist about game plans and tactics, but surely the very fact that Wales struggle against the same teams - Ireland, Australia etc - says something about the right game plan for the right opponent?

Yep, Gatland ball has worked, but is it enough going forward to try and win more often against better teams, by which I mean both Sanzar, and vastly improved home nations? I would argue that success in the last two years of the six nations has swept under the rug the possibility of improving in certain facets and that even well executed gatland ball is emminently beatable. Gatland should play to his strengths but have a more open mind about adding dimensions to his game.

Number 9: Genia? Du Preez? Pienaar? Genia has spent years now making Philips look foolish when the two teams meet. Aaron Smith has been better than anything in the north except Parra. Parra has been injured but is still quality.

 

[Big Ewis]

You know me Henry. I'm a serious, serious poster, and I naturally command utter respect from my contemporaries, it's just my natural glow, I can't help it, I just do and...so I take everything to heart.

Oh hell no I'm not implying Wales are unbeatable, people read a whole lot into my posts don't they ! - I'm just saying had they played a better game overall, obviously they wouldn't have conceded such a heavy loss.
But sometimes two teams play great, but one beats the other handsomely. And some times, one team plays awesome, and the other plays bad/mediocre - and people fail to understand that far too often; that there is an intrinsic level of play to each team, and that for a team sucking the explanation comes from that team itself and not just the pressure the opponents put on them.
There's a classic recent example from 2012 which illustrates this point beautifully, but I am - yes I admit it - afraid of using it on these boards at this moment in my life.

And Wales, say all you want; that I am positive; did NOT play to their potential that match. You could see it. Not focused, not playing intelligently, lack of vitality/initiative they can sometimes bring - I mean just compare Wales a) 2014 in Dublin b) vs England 2013. You'd see it, just not the same motivation, energy, will...

And yes you have a point about Wales failing against SANZAR nations, but there is also the clichéed-yet-very true psychological block, like they feel as though they're too small and unworthy of such giants. Although that is minimal compared to the actual Rugby on the field.

Strawberries.

 

[Peat]

Ok.

Lets break this down. A lot, most of what went wrong with Wales on the day was a result of insufficient preparation. I think that's what you're saying was the main cause right? That mentally, physically, they weren't up to it that day. I'd agree that was the case. It's why, in my first post, I said they'd be fine short term.

But I believe there were other issues, issues of system, that were at play. You appear to think Gatland-ball is a strong style of play which can beat the SANZAR teams. I don't. I think it is a strong style of play, but is a proven failure against the SANZAR teams, is very easy to plan against, and that any sufficiently good team will beat it fairly regularly. I believe Ireland had Gatland-ball sussed and I think their clear demonstration of an ability to deal with Gatland-ball, as being played on that day at least, is a big part of what sapped Wales' will to win.

So, yes, based on that game I think Wales need to change. But then, I believe Wales have needed to change for a very long time.

Can Wales change? Yes, I believe they could. I believe there is the technical ability in the squad to, say, play both Gatland-ball and a wide game with tight five forwards lurking out wide to support the winger. Or to play a better kicking game. If there isn't, I believe that is probably Gatland's fault. But I would also stress that a change in gameplan does not need to be so dramatic as a change in style. It can be as simple as the changes I proposed for dealing with O'Mahony. Or working on an assumption that your one-out runner will, instead of taking contact every time, will move the ball on half the time. You are greatly complicating the matter when it is not that complicated.

In short - Yes, Wales are better than where they were that day, but even at peak they are not good enough to do the things they want to do without change. That is my belief.

 

[Big Ewis]

well again you're putting things in my mouth I never said: "You appear to think Gatland-ball is a strong style of play which can beat the SANZAR teams."
This I'm not sure, as it's true their failures against SANZAR nations are impossible to avoid looking into. But I honestly haven't studied those defeats well enough, and observed in detail what the SANZAR nations do to supposedly "counter Gatland ball". First of all they're 3 nations, all distinct with often a radically different style than the other. So if they play counter-Gatland likely they all do it in a different way. And maybe they just each play to their strengths which each time happened to have won them the contest. Obviously there's always a big emphasis on North and the other big boys in the backline, you let them run free you're fkd.

So personally I don't know. You seem to think you do know for a fact the problem against SANZAR nations for Wales is that those have each understood how to counter Gatland ball, and that Wales are basically powerless against them through the Gatland scope, and that necessarily they need to change it if they want to achieve more than "just" 6N ***les.

Honestly, I think mainly the SANZAR nations have this sort of fitness that allows them to hold up 80 minutes against Wales, and of course flat out a superior level of play than the NH sides...
SA are sound enough on defense and have the bulk to deal with Wales up front. NZ are NZ, they beat everyone (literally ). And Australia have all these ultra-athletic guys who, even though they often lack in pure mass/power have such high workrate they'll deny teams consistently and throughout 80min as they've shown in their entire Tour of Europe last November.

But Wales came close against Australia, should we remind ppl of that: 26-30, and they only beat Wales because they're so good on attack they went on a tear like they distinctly do the Wallabies and I'd say, thinking of the match right now, they really *survived* MS. Australia managed to contain Wales for 80' but things just as easily could've gone the other way.

So I don't know if Gatland ball is really obsolete or ineffective against the SANZAR nations. Perhaps Wales just lose those matches...i.e. for different reasons in each particular instance.
And you say Gatland ball's "easy to plan against". Yeah, well how did they just get the last two 6N trophies ?
England are stable enough with their style and gameplan and don't offer much in the realms of creativity or improvisation, and yet they've got a very nice record from the past two years.

You might know what you need to do to stop a team before the game, but then you have to go out there and *actually stop the team*. And for most teams, messin with North and Roberts and the rest of the backline and getting through their defense are enough of a handful so that at the 80th minute, they've lost the game.

I'm all for adjustments though, obviously.

 

[Peat]

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am trying to find out what you mean and am saying what you appear to be saying so you can confirm or deny whether that's meant to be being taken from your words.

It's not that Gatland-ball doesn't work against the SANZAR teams, it's that it doesn't work against genuinely top class international teams. I've used SANZAR as basically, those three are the only teams that have been worthy of such an accolade recently. But it's not a special thing unique to them, it's just a matter of the necessary quality. As you say - it's one thing to know what you need to do, its another thing to actually do it. Most teams have not been good enough. But if a team is good enough, they'll beat it consistently. Wales can keep it and maybe bully the 6N a few more times, or they can change and expand if they want to beat the teams at the top table - and, hopefully, the 6N will improve to the point where they need to do so.

 

[Big Ewis]

I see what you're saying, and I'm on the verge of agreeing with you...but it gets complicated. It really does. At least for me, it's beyond my very humble understanding of the game as a mere fan of Rugby. I'd have to actually rewatch a good 4-5 of the Wales matches from 2013 and flat out study as opposed to be entertained by them...

Yes Wales, Gatland ball are quite one-dimensional. But is saying "SANZAR teams are too good to be beaten by Gatland ball" not a completely general statement that applies to any other team and style ? as in, France aren't exactly one-dimensional which is a big problem I wish we were sometimes, but our relative "plurality" (notice the quotes) of options are still of not sound enough quality to beat the NZ or SA.

What are we really putting the blame on right now: Gatland's one-dimensional scheme, or Wales' inability to match the highest competition, at all (i.e. SANZAR 3) ?

South Africa truly are one-dimensional, but it's a nearly impossible to stop dimension. Tremendous power and muscle up front, and with guys like Le Roux/Habana/JP P and their speed/athleticism and JDV/Fourie with their mass at center. NOTHING - absolutely not a single thing complex about their intentions: big scrum, big lineout, brutal at the breakdown, thick tall defense, mauls and forcing their way into opposite 22/into opposite try-line.
And yet...they're 2nd in the world, and it ain't no fluke.

So how much can we really blame Gatland ball ? I'm not totally convinced although after reading up on you guys' posts I've a different sentiment about the whole thing.

 

[Peat]

Valid question

Maybe they would get over the line with a bit more quality. There's no questioning that a fairly simple gameplan built around physicality can work very well or that Wales aren't a little short of options in some positions.

But when I look around - all of the other home nations have beaten Australia recently enough - I think Scotland have sneaked a win over SA in Murrayfield - we've beaten NZ with a wee bit of luck - beating those guys is not impossible for teams of our quality. But it seems to be so for Wales - but they're the same Wales who regularly walk all over the rest of us. To me, that says the game plan is at fault at least a bit as well.

 

[Big Ewis]

like I said, can't make generalities without very precise knowledge of what's happened. Is it a constant in failure, the exact same reason why they've lost all those SANZAR matches, or a different cause each time ? Each game is its own story, has its own complexion, anatomy. And though it's the same Gatland ball Wales that's lost all those matches, they may have been played differently every time...
Like, I don't know that the SANZAR nations went for the exact same scheme each time, and Wales just ran right into the exact same trap each and every time: therefor I can't agree with you because it's not fact as far as I'm concerned but supposition, albeit a likely one.

But sure, it does seem like it's a case of Gatland ball being too one-dimensional therefor predictable, therefor denied on the regular.

 

[j'nuh]

Valid question

Maybe they would get over the line with a bit more quality. There's no questioning that a fairly simple gameplan built around physicality can work very well or that Wales aren't a little short of options in some positions.

But when I look around - all of the other home nations have beaten Australia recently enough - I think Scotland have sneaked a win over SA in Murrayfield - we've beaten NZ with a wee bit of luck - beating those guys is not impossible for teams of our quality. But it seems to be so for Wales - but they're the same Wales who regularly walk all over the rest of us. To me, that says the game plan is at fault at least a bit as well.

Wales win more tournaments, but they're also more prone to 4th-place finishes. Overall, I bet their win/loss record is not too noteworthy for a NH team.

I think the problem with Wales is that so many of their players have been elevated to star/world class level, possibly on the account of too small a period of being in great form. Loads of people will say Warburton is a better player than Robshaw, and it's true that Warburton has hit better heights than Robshaw, but the problem is that Warburton has also hit lower points than Robshaw. Same with Lydiate and Wood. Even now, I'd argue Brown and Lawes are playing better than Halfpenny and AWJ. Priestland and Farrell? Phillips and Care? For England and Wales, I'd argue that May has stood out of all the wingers. Roberts is a star, but Twelvetrees has been better.

 

[Big Ewis]

^ a lot of this is true. Good point.

 

[dullonien]

I think the problem with Wales is that so many of their players have been elevated to star/world class level, possibly on the account of too small a period of being in great form. Loads of people will say Warburton is a better player than Robshaw, and it's true that Warburton has hit better heights than Robshaw, but the problem is that Warburton has also hit lower points than Robshaw. Same with Lydiate and Wood. Even now, I'd argue Brown and Lawes are playing better than Halfpenny and AWJ. Priestland and Farrell? Phillips and Care? For England and Wales, I'd argue that May has stood out of all the wingers. Roberts is a star, but Twelvetrees has been better.

That's a little harsh on many of the Welsh players imo. Going through the players you've mentioned:

Warburton: when fit he's a quality player, but he is injury prone. There's fault with Gatland for constantly picking an only just fit again Warburton.
Lydiate: was a very consistent player before injury last year. Hasn't quite been the same since, with his move to Racing also not helping his recovery.
Halfpenny: has been consistently excellent in just about every one of his Welsh caps. Even against Ireland he was decent, standing up well to to the aerial bombardment, losing out to Kearney once when both caught the ball the one time he didn't field a high ball. Of course he gets marked down for the charge down.
AWJ: another hugely consistent performer for Wales, racking up a huge number of caps for his age. Has been below his best thus far this 6 nations though.
Priestland: fair enough, but most Welsh fans don't really rate him too highly. Gatland loves him though, which is a problem.
North & Cuthbert: lethal wingers who have earn't their reputations imo. Very difficult for wingers to shine when their pack isn't going well.
Roberts: certainly limited in his style, but effective. There is an argument that Roberts does limit Wales' game plan, but I think he could fit into a more expansive game plan if utilised slightly differently.

 

[Big Ewis]

Roberts: certainly limited in his style, but effective. There is an argument that Roberts does limit Wales' game plan, but I think he could fit into a more expansive game plan if utilised slightly differently.

...so I've heard. So I've heard.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Wales win more tournaments, but they're also more prone to 4th-place finishes. Overall, I bet their win/loss record is not too noteworthy for a NH team.

I remember checking this, I know that England under Johnson + Lancaster have won a higher % of games than Wales have under Gatland. Don't know about the others though.