RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:England at Twickenham will be a very different proposition, but if we play our game it’s not mission impossible even if England are favourites.

Indeed. England looked solid in the setpiece against one of the lighter Italian packs we've seen over the years, but had some iffy discipline, poor work at the breakdown too often, were slow, not many running threats, and had issues aligning in defence, it's not exactly unbeatable stuff

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:England at Twickenham will be a very different proposition, but if we play our game it’s not mission impossible even if England are favourites.

Indeed. England looked solid in the setpiece against one of the lighter Italian packs we've seen over the years, but had some iffy discipline, poor work at the breakdown too often, were slow, not many running threats, and had issues aligning in defence, it's not exactly unbeatable stuff

Like last year, the back row battle will be interesting. I’m not entirely convinced by the balance of the English one, even if it is powerful.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:England at Twickenham will be a very different proposition, but if we play our game it’s not mission impossible even if England are favourites.

Indeed. England looked solid in the setpiece against one of the lighter Italian packs we've seen over the years, but had some iffy discipline, poor work at the breakdown too often, were slow, not many running threats, and had issues aligning in defence, it's not exactly unbeatable stuff

Like last year, the back row battle will be interesting. I’m not entirely convinced by the balance of the English one, even if it is powerful.

That's clearly both truthful and hitting below the belt, less of that please. It's bad enough spending a week wondering why we care so little about the breakdown, our plan as is seems to be hope Maro doesn't get pinged and Launch gets over the ball 2-3 times in addition. Though I'd not be surprised if England had overtrained going into this weekend knowing it was only Italy and with a 6 day turnaround we'll not get much work done after travelling back from Italy.

We have a decent chance.

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

Watch out though - Ford and Farell are now telepathic according to the BBC.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Watch out though - Ford and Farell are now telepathic according to the BBC.

I’m sure Shaun will be working furiously to tap into the telepathic wavelength.

As Ireland have been shown in the past there are backrow and 10/12 moves which can effectively counter the loop.

normanski wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Watch out though - Ford and Farell are now telepathic according to the BBC.

I’m sure Shaun will be working furiously to tap into the telepathic wavelength.

As Ireland have been shown in the past there are backrow and 10/12 moves which can effectively counter the loop.

They largely depend on spotting it - and England are only just starting to use ot, and whilst they've worked out how to do it (with players other than just the 2 of them); they haven't worked out how to disguise it yet.
It worked really well against Italy; it won't work that well against anyone else; but as Sexton has shown over the years; it only needs to work well once, and it's bought 7 points; whilst having the option creates doubt in defences, even if you don't use it.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:We have a decent chance.

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

Heaven forbid you give credit where it's due.

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:We have a decent chance.

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

Heaven forbid you give credit where it's due.

Wayne Pivac?

Which Tyler wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:We have a decent chance.

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

Heaven forbid you give credit where it's due.

Wayne Pivac?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:We have a decent chance.

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

Heaven forbid you give credit where it's due.

But seriously - are you giving Gatland the credit for the way those Scarlets scored all those tries?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:We have a decent chance.

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

Heaven forbid you give credit where it's due.

But seriously - are you giving Gatland the credit for the way those Scarlets scored all those tries?

Did you actually watch the game, all the players were playing a more open style and whereas there is no doubt Wales have been able to piggyback on the Scarlets style the credit for Wales's performance doesn't lie with Pivac, are you aware of how Pivac got his job with the Scarlets in the first place?

Do you think that all Eddie Jones's success with England is actually down to Mark McCall? Or Irelands with Leo Cullen, because Ireland play very similarly to Leinster you know.

Or are you just ignoring facts to suit your own agenda against Gatland, again.

I am not convinced that one person is ever responsible for the way a team plays whether it is good or bad ..whether that's a coach or a player. The influence of open play on the culture of Welsh Rugby goes back a tad more than 2 to 3 seasons but if is the intergration of that plan to all the players that was a notable success.

However some balance of praise and understanding has to be struck between how Wales played in attack ...but also how effective they were in defence creating pressure off the ball on the most potent attacking threata on the Scottish team. For me that was a really effective performance without the ball that was more finesse than grunt and there have been a few awesome grunt performances.

ALunpg wrote:I am not convinced that one person is ever responsible for the way a team plays whether it is good or bad ..whether that's a coach or a player. The influence of open play on the culture of Welsh Rugby goes back a tad more than 2 to 3 seasons but if is the intergration of that plan to all the players that was a notable success.

However some balance of praise and understanding has to be struck between how Wales played in attack ...but also how effective they were in defence creating pressure off the ball on the most potent attacking threata on the Scottish team. For me that was a really effective performance without the ball that was more finesse than grunt and there have been a few awesome grunt performances.

Aye, as I said Wales have benefited from the Scarlets success but there is more to a rugby team than attack and the Scarlets don't kick the ball anywhere near as much as we did on Saturday.

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:
Heaven forbid you give credit where it's due.

But seriously - are you giving Gatland the credit for the way those Scarlets scored all those tries?

Did you actually watch the game, all the players were playing a more open style and whereas there is no doubt Wales have been able to piggyback on the Scarlets style the credit for Wales's performance doesn't lie with Pivac, are you aware of how Pivac got his job with the Scarlets in the first place?

Do you think that all Eddie Jones's success with England is actually down to Mark McCall? Or Irelands with Leo Cullen, because Ireland play very similarly to Leinster you know.

Or are you just ignoring facts to suit your own agenda against Gatland, again.

Gatland has been struggling to get Wales to score tries for years. 4 of them come along at once - it's no coincidence.

Sorry, I'm no expert on Pivac's history - my contention is that the sudden improvement in Wales's attack is largely due to the influence of the Scarlets, NOT anything Gatland has done. For the sake of simplicity I'm describing this as Pivac's influence, but an expert on Pivac could give me a better idea of whether this is down to him or someone else in his camp. Maybe a lot of it is down to Steven Jones? Who knows for sure, but I contend it's not down to Gatland or Howley.

Not interested in widening this discussion to England or Ireland, thanks. That all seems a bit tenuous.

Agenda? It's just an opinion. That it doesn't align with yours doesn't make it an agenda.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: But seriously - are you giving Gatland the credit for the way those Scarlets scored all those tries?

Did you actually watch the game, all the players were playing a more open style and whereas there is no doubt Wales have been able to piggyback on the Scarlets style the credit for Wales's performance doesn't lie with Pivac, are you aware of how Pivac got his job with the Scarlets in the first place?

Do you think that all Eddie Jones's success with England is actually down to Mark McCall? Or Irelands with Leo Cullen, because Ireland play very similarly to Leinster you know.

Or are you just ignoring facts to suit your own agenda against Gatland, again.

Gatland has been struggling to get Wales to score tries for years. 4 of them come along at once - it's no coincidence.

Sorry, I'm no expert on Pivac's history - my contention is that the sudden improvement in Wales's attack is largely due to the influence of the Scarlets, NOT anything Gatland has done. For the sake of simplicity I'm describing this as Pivac's influence, but an expert on Pivac could give me a better idea of whether this is down to him or someone else in his camp. Maybe a lot of it is down to Steven Jones? Who knows for sure, but I contend it's not down to Gatland or Howley.

Not interested in widening this discussion to England or Ireland, thanks. That all seems a bit tenuous.

Agenda? It's just an opinion. That it doesn't align with yours doesn't make it an agenda.

You seem to have conflated scoring tries and putting in a full performance, for instance had our defence been poor or our tactics not as good we wouldn't have had that performance, before the match we were all decrying the potential kicking the ball aimlessly to their back three, we did this Saturday but there attack was negated by a good kick chase, there is more to winning a rugby match than scoring tries albeit that is obviously important.

Tactics aside, having players who are in form and full of confidence, and actually picking those players, makes a huge difference.

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:
Did you actually watch the game, all the players were playing a more open style and whereas there is no doubt Wales have been able to piggyback on the Scarlets style the credit for Wales's performance doesn't lie with Pivac, are you aware of how Pivac got his job with the Scarlets in the first place?

Do you think that all Eddie Jones's success with England is actually down to Mark McCall? Or Irelands with Leo Cullen, because Ireland play very similarly to Leinster you know.

Or are you just ignoring facts to suit your own agenda against Gatland, again.

Gatland has been struggling to get Wales to score tries for years. 4 of them come along at once - it's no coincidence.

Sorry, I'm no expert on Pivac's history - my contention is that the sudden improvement in Wales's attack is largely due to the influence of the Scarlets, NOT anything Gatland has done. For the sake of simplicity I'm describing this as Pivac's influence, but an expert on Pivac could give me a better idea of whether this is down to him or someone else in his camp. Maybe a lot of it is down to Steven Jones? Who knows for sure, but I contend it's not down to Gatland or Howley.

Not interested in widening this discussion to England or Ireland, thanks. That all seems a bit tenuous.

Agenda? It's just an opinion. That it doesn't align with yours doesn't make it an agenda.

You seem to have conflated scoring tries and putting in a full performance, for instance had our defence been poor or our tactics not as good we wouldn't have had that performance, before the match we were all decrying the potential kicking the ball aimlessly to their back three, we did this Saturday but there attack was negated by a good kick chase, there is more to winning a rugby match than scoring tries albeit that is obviously important.

I didn't mention full performance, but having both an effective attack and defence is certainly more complete. Does that mean you're agreeing with me? Or disagreeing?

Sandydragon wrote:

normanski wrote:You can say our first interception try was lucky after a great start by Scotland but it was sufficient to put them on the back foot.

I thought from that point on we put together a great team performance with virtually all the replacements doing well to keep the momentum going for the full 80.

Next week will be a different kettle of fish and I worry if Anscombe has to come on at 60 mins for a cramping Patchell. Today our forwards stepped up and covered his deficiencies.

It’ll be interesting to see how England go on tomorrow.

Yup. Patch did well on the whole, although I though his first option was to run himself a couple of times when he might have looked at the wider game.

Anscombe made a bad mistake with that dropped ball, but otherwise looked alright.

We will need to improve for next week, but considering that we had been written off for this game, I’ll be having a few beers later on the back of this.

Patch didn't put a foot wrong. He made 4 tackles in the first 5 mins, one on Jonnie Gray and one on John Barclay, his carrying was epic, he never got turned over and always made good yards, dragging in at least 2.
I actually have mixed feelings that the only weapon he didn't utilize was the 30m bomber off both hands.
I guess It's test match rugby...etc. ,....another level etc....

The Scarlets defensive pattern has beautiful simplicity. Their 'back two' system seemed very tidy.
Is Cym-Roo still posting, he'd know ?.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Gatland has been struggling to get Wales to score tries for years. 4 of them come along at once - it's no coincidence.

Sorry, I'm no expert on Pivac's history - my contention is that the sudden improvement in Wales's attack is largely due to the influence of the Scarlets, NOT anything Gatland has done. For the sake of simplicity I'm describing this as Pivac's influence, but an expert on Pivac could give me a better idea of whether this is down to him or someone else in his camp. Maybe a lot of it is down to Steven Jones? Who knows for sure, but I contend it's not down to Gatland or Howley.

Not interested in widening this discussion to England or Ireland, thanks. That all seems a bit tenuous.

Agenda? It's just an opinion. That it doesn't align with yours doesn't make it an agenda.

You seem to have conflated scoring tries and putting in a full performance, for instance had our defence been poor or our tactics not as good we wouldn't have had that performance, before the match we were all decrying the potential kicking the ball aimlessly to their back three, we did this Saturday but there attack was negated by a good kick chase, there is more to winning a rugby match than scoring tries albeit that is obviously important.

I didn't mention full performance, but having both an effective attack and defence is certainly more complete. Does that mean you're agreeing with me? Or disagreeing?

Ok, you said that Pivac was responsible for Wales's win, as I have said from the start Wales have benefited from the Scarlets cohesion but that is certainly not the only reason for their win which is what you were making out.

So to make this simple for you I am not agreeing with your assertion that the Scarlets coaching team are responsible for Wales's win on Saturday.

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:
You seem to have conflated scoring tries and putting in a full performance, for instance had our defence been poor or our tactics not as good we wouldn't have had that performance, before the match we were all decrying the potential kicking the ball aimlessly to their back three, we did this Saturday but there attack was negated by a good kick chase, there is more to winning a rugby match than scoring tries albeit that is obviously important.

I didn't mention full performance, but having both an effective attack and defence is certainly more complete. Does that mean you're agreeing with me? Or disagreeing?

Ok, you said that Pivac was responsible for Wales's win, as I have said from the start Wales have benefited from the Scarlets cohesion but that is certainly not the only reason for their win which is what you were making out.

So to make this simple for you I am not agreeing with your assertion that the Scarlets coaching team are responsible for Wales's win on Saturday.

No, that's not what I said. I know we're not going to agree exactly, but you seem to be going out of your way to ascribe some view to me so you can disagree with it. This is what I actually said:

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

OK, I know you don't like this, but I'm not exactly saying Pivac is "the only reason" for Wales's win, am I? I'm saying that the Scarlets/Pivac provided Gatland with a vital piece of the puzzle which Gatland has been struggling to produce for quite some time.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I didn't mention full performance, but having both an effective attack and defence is certainly more complete. Does that mean you're agreeing with me? Or disagreeing?

Ok, you said that Pivac was responsible for Wales's win, as I have said from the start Wales have benefited from the Scarlets cohesion but that is certainly not the only reason for their win which is what you were making out.

So to make this simple for you I am not agreeing with your assertion that the Scarlets coaching team are responsible for Wales's win on Saturday.

No, that's not what I said. I know we're not going to agree exactly, but you seem to be going out of your way to ascribe some view to me so you can disagree with it. This is what I actually said:

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

OK, I know you don't like this, but I'm not exactly saying Pivac is "the only reason" for Wales's win, am I? I'm saying that the Scarlets/Pivac provided Gatland with a vital piece of the puzzle which Gatland has been struggling to produce for quite some time.

You sort of intimated that when you remarked "Couldn't have put it better myself" when Which Tyler posted "Pivac?"

Gatland's function is to adopt the right personnel and tactics to suit the opposition we're facing, that's it, he doesn't coach the backs he's an ex hooker.

With regards to the skill set and playing attitude at the Scarlets that has been their policy for as long as I can remember, way before Pivac came onto the scene, what Pivac has done is develop a much better forward unit and sign players very astutely, he also seems to be very well liked which helps.

If you want to thank anyone for providing the more attacking style then Gareth Jenkins is your man as it's him who develops the player skillsets within the academy. If you listen to Pivac he has said previously that he lets the players take the options they feel comfortable with, the large majority of Scarlets tries coming from turnovers rather than set plays (driving lineouts excepted).

Anyway that's my view and you have yours so I'm not going to continue as, as you quite rightly say, it doesn't look like we'll agree.

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:
Ok, you said that Pivac was responsible for Wales's win, as I have said from the start Wales have benefited from the Scarlets cohesion but that is certainly not the only reason for their win which is what you were making out.

So to make this simple for you I am not agreeing with your assertion that the Scarlets coaching team are responsible for Wales's win on Saturday.

No, that's not what I said. I know we're not going to agree exactly, but you seem to be going out of your way to ascribe some view to me so you can disagree with it. This is what I actually said:

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

OK, I know you don't like this, but I'm not exactly saying Pivac is "the only reason" for Wales's win, am I? I'm saying that the Scarlets/Pivac provided Gatland with a vital piece of the puzzle which Gatland has been struggling to produce for quite some time.

You sort of intimated that when you remarked "Couldn't have put it better myself" when Which Tyler posted "Pivac?"

Gatland's function is to adopt the right personnel and tactics to suit the opposition we're facing, that's it, he doesn't coach the backs he's an ex hooker.

With regards to the skill set and playing attitude at the Scarlets that has been their policy for as long as I can remember, way before Pivac came onto the scene, what Pivac has done is develop a much better forward unit and sign players very astutely, he also seems to be very well liked which helps.

If you want to thank anyone for providing the more attacking style then Gareth Jenkins is your man as it's him who develops the player skillsets within the academy. If you listen to Pivac he has said previously that he lets the players take the options they feel comfortable with, the large majority of Scarlets tries coming from turnovers rather than set plays (driving lineouts excepted).

Anyway that's my view and you have yours so I'm not going to continue as, as you quite rightly say, it doesn't look like we'll agree.

"Sort of intimated"? Exactly. Maybe if you concentrate on what I actually say you won't find so much to disagree with.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: No, that's not what I said. I know we're not going to agree exactly, but you seem to be going out of your way to ascribe some view to me so you can disagree with it. This is what I actually said:

The situation is perfect for Gatland: the players come pre-coached for the attacking game. All Gatland has to do is what he does best - coach a very solid defence.

OK, I know you don't like this, but I'm not exactly saying Pivac is "the only reason" for Wales's win, am I? I'm saying that the Scarlets/Pivac provided Gatland with a vital piece of the puzzle which Gatland has been struggling to produce for quite some time.

You sort of intimated that when you remarked "Couldn't have put it better myself" when Which Tyler posted "Pivac?"

Gatland's function is to adopt the right personnel and tactics to suit the opposition we're facing, that's it, he doesn't coach the backs he's an ex hooker.

With regards to the skill set and playing attitude at the Scarlets that has been their policy for as long as I can remember, way before Pivac came onto the scene, what Pivac has done is develop a much better forward unit and sign players very astutely, he also seems to be very well liked which helps.

If you want to thank anyone for providing the more attacking style then Gareth Jenkins is your man as it's him who develops the player skillsets within the academy. If you listen to Pivac he has said previously that he lets the players take the options they feel comfortable with, the large majority of Scarlets tries coming from turnovers rather than set plays (driving lineouts excepted).

Anyway that's my view and you have yours so I'm not going to continue as, as you quite rightly say, it doesn't look like we'll agree.

"Sort of intimated"? Exactly. Maybe if you concentrate on what I actually say you won't find so much to disagree with.

You are being disingenuous, you obviously meant that and are now trying to back out of it, this is plain to see with most of your Gatland diatribes, it's a shame you can't comment on anything positively or constructively.

Guys, guys - you're both very pretty.

I know this is the WMB, and you're very keen on internecine warfare.

But for this week of all weeks - don't you have a common enemy to unite against?