RugbyRebels

Ross. S wrote:

Numbers wrote:It's strange isn't it how the two Welsh centres can play an wider game quite capably for the Scarlets but not for Wales, this is about the game plan not the players.

To afraid to break the defensive pattern and incure the wrath of Mr. Edwards should they give the ball away?

More likely the speed of ball and the 10 playing flat I would say, they don't get enough quality possession at international level to be able to play more expansively a lot of the time and a limited 10 doesn't help matters.

hawkaye wrote:They played to a standstill against France and deserve a salute for the effort rather than the censorious moaning here. They competed well against England and it was a very close call. Over the whole competition they had 2 poor 40 minutes. Sure there are things that need improvement but it is a good side that no NH side would take for granted. Ball has come on well and is carrying; signs of Francis doing the same and he is still quite young for a TH. Back row going well - great against France, England and Ireland but what on earth happened against Scotland after the break?
Not nearly so despondent as other posters - its a good side with good players which will get better with small changes in personnel and nous.

Yeah. This weekend was the last week of a test match tournament. The players are cooked.
The times when Wales play really well, make the times they don't even more frustrating. No change there.

hawkaye wrote:They played to a standstill against France and deserve a salute for the effort rather than the censorious moaning here. They competed well against England and it was a very close call. Over the whole competition they had 2 poor 40 minutes. Sure there are things that need improvement but it is a good side that no NH side would take for granted. Ball has come on well and is carrying; signs of Francis doing the same and he is still quite young for a TH. Back row going well - great against France, England and Ireland but what on earth happened against Scotland after the break?
Not nearly so despondent as other posters - its a good side with good players which will get better with small changes in personnel and nous.

The problem with this way of looking at things is that, well in the past we could say that we've beaten NZ as long as you overlook the poor 10 minutes we had when they ran in a load of tries. And Italy usually have a great first 60 minutes after which they capitulate. A poor 10 minutes (let alone 40 minutes) is enough to make the whole 80 (or 100 ) minutes bad.

If this could be put right (consistently, not a one-off like the Ireland match) with small changes then we would have made those changes by now.

Give them a break SoM. The only time I saw a lack of intensity was the 2nd half against Scotland. Other than that they worked their socks off. There will be better days with largely the same team. A few messed up takes from France kick off cost us on Saturday, a cocked clearance cost us against England - small margins. Sometimes they go our way sometimes the way of opponents.
Ireland who have had a great record of beating top sides recently are struggling to score tries even with a v good 10. It's not so easy with modern fitness levels and defensive tactics.
England, Ireland Wales and France all struggled to score tries last Saturday despite having fast and well drilled backlines.

Sorry Hawkeye but I disagree there, not about the effort put into the game by the players but the general effectiveness of our play. I expect commitment every game so that should never be in question. But this tournament has shown that we are tactically playing a game that is outmoded. Yes we didn't lose by much to England or France but frankly that ain't the point. We continue to play a highly defensive game which just won't take us over the line with the best teams and doesn't bring the rewards it once did. We needed to adapt and haven't.

We need a serious overhaul in how we play the game and potentially a few tweaks in personnel to make it work. Most of all we need some coaches who can take risks.

Roberts in particular isn't the same player anymore but you have to feel for a bunch of centres that thrive on the gain line having to play from that deep and not at least having Williams coming in from fullback to take the pressure off.

No need for apologies. Almost all teams play defensive games in the sense that they are hard to score against. I don't see a lack of effort or ambition when attacking.
There is a case for lying deeper to create space to run into; but Biggar doesn't use it and doesn't have the acceleration to do so effectively. There is a case for lying flat too - less time for the defence, pop passes, unpunished blocking, wrap around. Important to vary the attack to test the defence.
Not enough kicking to the corners for field position; not enough contested lineouts. Too much box kicking.
Wales are trying to run the ball and at times (esp against Scotland) were forcing offloads and making mistakes - so its not lack of ambition but execution and decision making.

My problems is not the intensity shown by our team. The problem is that the gameplan is so ineffective against decent teams that it requires our players to play with intensity and/or accuracy that they can only achieve intermittently. So we will have a good game or two... and then we'll have a couple of bad ones... then a good one etc etc. Better than losing them all, but not good enough. It was never good enough for the SH, now it isn't even good enough to beat Scotland or France.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:My problems is not the intensity shown by our team. The problem is that the gameplan is so ineffective against decent teams that it requires our players to play with intensity and/or accuracy that they can only achieve intermittently. So we will have a good game or two... and then we'll have a couple of bad ones... then a good one etc etc. Better than losing them all, but not good enough. It was never good enough for the SH, now it isn't even good enough to beat Scotland or France.

Ultimately our game plan was designed when defences had the advantage. Holding onto the ball for long periods was dangerous due to the way the breakdown was reffed. The balance has now tilted towards the attack, but we are still risk adverse. When Shane points to the Australian defeat in the AI, which caused us to retreat inwards, I think he has a point.

Don't really follow this. Defences are still v strong. The only difference I see in ref'ing the breakdown is that far fewer penalties are being given for not rolling away. About time when so many teams look for penalties by preventing players from rolling away. If there is tilt in the balance it will be countered by putting fewer into the breakdown. Our defence was shocking against Australian - we probably went out with an attacking mindset - fat lot of good it did.

hawkaye wrote:Don't really follow this. Defences are still v strong. The only difference I see in ref'ing the breakdown is that far fewer penalties are being given for not rolling away. About time when so many teams look for penalties by preventing players from rolling away. If there is tilt in the balance it will be countered by putting fewer into the breakdown. Our defence was shocking against Australian - we probably went out with an attacking mindset - fat lot of good it did.

Defences are strong, but having possession of the ball isn't the risk it used to be, there are fewer jackles and refs are giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side,

I see three circumstances; we have control of the ball, they have control of the ball, none has control of the ball. The most dangerous situation is where control goes directly from us to them via interception, ripping, spilling, turnovers etc. Refs play only play significant part in the tackle area.
My guesss is that in tight matches ( and most are these days) the side which gets control most often directly from the opposition ( not via a no control phase like box kicks) win more often. Note - not the side with most possession but the circumstance in which they gain possession.

We have gone backwards and will continue to do so until we can come up with something new, which this current coaching team has proven themselves incapable of doing. We are a team dominated by a Shaun Edwards defense, every other aspect of play comes secondary to this, the whole system needs to be ripped up and started again from scratch.

We are defensively strong. So are most other teams. All sides in NH are finding it hard work to score tries (agains Eng, France, Wales, Ireland and less so Scotland).
France, England and Ireland are not going to abandon their defensive strategies but concentrate on getting control of the ball directly from the opposition by developing their defensive strategies further into game changers ( Ireland went looking for interceptions when Biggar came flat.)
All sides now try more often to ripe the ball in stand up tackles; more aggressive tackling and greater line speed to cause spills.
Scoring from set pieces seems and is more difficult because defences are organised (apart for Scotland's against England but England were not able to do the same against other 5Ns).
The big question is this: if we loosen up with a more attacking style with offloads and higher risk plays what will it cost us in conceded tries. Against Australia it led to bit of a thumping. In my view we must stay defensively strong but use that strength as a platform for attack.

We are particularly bad at converting possession and turnovers into tries. Since we fail to rack up the points when we have the chance, we put an enormous pressure onto our defence to keep our opponents from scoring when they have the ball. This is why we fail against the SH teams almost all the time (and more than our 6N rivals do). I'm not asking for our defence to be changed, but we need to try (and persevere with) more aggressive and creative attacking strategies, even if that does increase the risk of turnovers.

Our problem is that we are incredibly risk adverse in attack. Without the ball I have few complaints, we are normally solid. But with the ball its a different matter.

Sending one player into contact with supporting players on hand is safe enough, but it won't score enough points to win the match. We have shown in patches that by playing flatter and using decoy runners, we can open up a defence. Basic skills have on occasion let us down but too often we haven't looked to attack and our first instinct is to boot the ball down field and let the opposition run back at us. This tactic no longer works.

Stranger still is that when Sam Davies is on they still sit back and are not ready for the flat ball. They both played with Rhys Preistland who plays flat .
I am more of the opinion this year that their set play plans are so regimented they have nothing in the pot to change up at all when the 10 changeso out.
Maybe it is time to redesign the attack based around the 10 playing flatter and get the best fit player into that slot.

I wonder who that maybe ...

ALunpg wrote:Stranger still is that when Sam Davies is on they still sit back and are not ready for the flat ball. They both played with Rhys Preistland who plays flat .
I am more of the opinion this year that their set play plans are so regimented they have nothing in the pot to change up at all when the 10 changeso out.
Maybe it is time to redesign the attack based around the 10 playing flatter and get the best fit player into that slot.

I wonder who that maybe ...

There was a piece the fail examining why the Welsh attack falls apart after 4 phases. Unless we can score off a pre-planned move, then we seem to run out of ideas.

Sandydragon wrote:

ALunpg wrote:Stranger still is that when Sam Davies is on they still sit back and are not ready for the flat ball. They both played with Rhys Preistland who plays flat .
I am more of the opinion this year that their set play plans are so regimented they have nothing in the pot to change up at all when the 10 changeso out.
Maybe it is time to redesign the attack based around the 10 playing flatter and get the best fit player into that slot.

I wonder who that maybe ...

There was a piece the fail examining why the Welsh attack falls apart after 4 phases. Unless we can score off a pre-planned move, then we seem to run out of ideas.

Our lack of ideas becomes palpable after a few phases.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

ALunpg wrote:Stranger still is that when Sam Davies is on they still sit back and are not ready for the flat ball. They both played with Rhys Preistland who plays flat .
I am more of the opinion this year that their set play plans are so regimented they have nothing in the pot to change up at all when the 10 changeso out.
Maybe it is time to redesign the attack bas9ed around the 10 playing flatter and get the best fit player into that slot.

I wonder who that maybe ...

There was a piece the fail examining why the Welsh attack falls apart after 4 phases. Unless we can score off a pre-planned move, then we seem to run out of ideas.

Our lack of ideas becomes palpable after a few phases.

Exactly ,that is where the caution comes to bear and we lack precision when the attacking by numbers option stops. It was probably as much as King could get them to do was a 3 or 4 phase option to unlock the defence.

Jiffy picked it out on the Scarlets match against Edinburgh (and they are not the only or worst offenders) that passes are not put in front of the player to run on to...either into the body or worse behind them that momentum is lost and the attack is blunted.

I agree with Ben Ryan the basic core passing skills have not kept up with the demands of the modern game.

One thing I also learned that the offside line in open play now seems to be at least half a metre in front of the back of the ruck or maul !!! drives me bonkers ..

There was a remarkable difference in Scarlet's play after the break. In 1st half everything was done quickly especially clear outs and the 9 got the ball away without dithering and looking around for 20 sec. I don't know what happened in 2nd half but it had something go do with the changes at 9 and 10.
As regards putting the ball in front of the receiver - yes, but the receiver must not overrun the ball by lying too flat or even ahead of the passer which happened a few times in the Scarlets match.

ALunpg wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: There was a piece the fail examining why the Welsh attack falls apart after 4 phases. Unless we can score off a pre-planned move, then we seem to run out of ideas.

Our lack of ideas becomes palpable after a few phases.

Exactly ,that is where the caution comes to bear and we lack precision when the attacking by numbers option stops. It was probably as much as King could get them to do was a 3 or 4 phase option to unlock the defence.

Jiffy picked it out on the Scarlets match against Edinburgh (and they are not the only or worst offenders) that passes are not put in front of the player to run on to...either into the body or worse behind them that momentum is lost and the attack is blunted.

I agree with Ben Ryan the basic core passing skills have not kept up with the demands of the modern game.

One thing I also learned that the offside line in open play now seems to be at least half a metre in front of the back of the ruck or maul !!! drives me bonkers ..

He did mention the support runner overrunning the ball, this happens a great deal on the wing I have noticed, the net effect of this is the ball will be passed behind the support player (Cuthbert and North can be found guilty of this, especially Cuthbert).

The offside line officiating has been poor for a season or two now, you can absolve the ref to a degree when the players are lined up behind him but not the linesman. It's been proven in league that if you keep doing it and everyone keeps doing it the refs will eventually ignore it, similar to the not straight scrum feeds.

Numbers wrote:

ALunpg wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
Our lack of ideas becomes palpable after a few phases.

Exactly ,that is where the caution comes to bear and we lack precision when the attacking by numbers option stops. It was probably as much as King could get them to do was a 3 or 4 phase option to unlock the defence.

Jiffy picked it out on the Scarlets match against Edinburgh (and they are not the only or worst offenders) that passes are not put in front of the player to run on to...either into the body or worse behind them that momentum is lost and the attack is blunted.

I agree with Ben Ryan the basic core passing skills have not kept up with the demands of the modern game.

One thing I also learned that the offside line in open play now seems to be at least half a metre in front of the back of the ruck or maul !!! drives me bonkers ..

He did mention the support runner overrunning the ball, this happens a great deal on the wing I have noticed, the net effect of this is the ball will be passed behind the support player (Cuthbert and North can be found guilty of this, especially Cuthbert).

The offside line officiating has been poor for a season or two now, you can absolve the ref to a degree when the players are lined up behind him but not the linesman. It's been proven in league that if you keep doing it and everyone keeps doing it the refs will eventually ignore it, similar to the not straight scrum feeds.

Totally agree. Why aren't touch judges alterting the ref that players are infringing. They have the best view of all. A few penalties awarded and it will stop.

I remain in favour of taser boots, then any player who creeps over such as the offside line can spend the next 2-3 minutes recovering after being left twitching on the ground.

Though I suspect some will favour the idea of using the GPS data which already exists to feed info to the officials as to whether players are offside, maybe just a beep on the earpiece. And really that's not too hard to do between using the GPS data and the latest camera technology, even if electrocuting cheats has quite some appeal.

Digby wrote:I remain in favour of taser boots, then any player who creeps over such as the offside line can spend the next 2-3 minutes recovering after being left twitching on the ground.

Though I suspect some will favour the idea of using the GPS data which already exists to feed info to the officials as to whether players are offside, maybe just a beep on the earpiece. And really that's not too hard to do between using the GPS data and the latest camera technology, even if electrocuting cheats has quite some appeal.

You could do that. Or just tell the touch judges to police the off side line by physically standing on it and flagging when a player transgresses. Less expensive, although perhaps not as sci-fi gladiatorial blood lust as your solution