RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Graigwen wrote:I am very gloomy.

I feel like I’m watching this more out of duty than real hope.

We have to get off to a flying start and frustrate England if we’re to have any hopes in this game. A big ask given our more usual slow burn and a gritty final quarter.

England will kick and kick like they did against the Irish last week and hope for a lucky bounce or two.

Our back three and half backs will have to be well positioned with no fumbles from the kick off. First up tackles will have to be clean and decisive.

While I can’t see a Wales win it may be closer than think.

Performance for 80 minutes will be required.

Probably, this will be AWJ’s last appearance at Twickenham so we won’t be lacking in emotional energy for the match. I expect the boys to be really fired up for this

Not fit; not match fit; out of form; age catching up covers 12 or 13 of our starting 15. (A lot of weight on Tipuric's shoulders!)

I don't think it is a good England side, but we could be in trouble here.

Now I have to go and watch it with England supposters.

.

England 33-17 Wales

Don't tell me to cheer up - I've already dialed that down by 10 points!

It’s going to be a long afternoon.

Get in Farrells face...he will lose it.

The scoreboard says we're still in it at the break. We're really not, are we?

They're happy to concede pens, because they'll get points on every visit to our 22. We just look as if we turned up to make up the numbers.

I try to be positive, but I'm really not sure what we're trying to do, and whatever it is, we're not doing it. This is going to get very ugly.

Sourdust wrote:The scoreboard says we're still in it at the break. We're really not, are we?

We are now...

Scrum time problems again. That will continue to hurt us.

England power play looking a bit too effective for us.

Was that a shoulder to AWJs head?

Just showing the English dominant tackle replays. So forearms to the head and tip tackles are ok again now?

Some cards but a bit late in the day.

Entertaining at the last and I felt that some English tackling earlier in the game was questionable but the better team won. A win built on a strong pack performance which caused us no end of problems.

We need to find a way to get through a defence that is that aggressive. England played on the edge but unless the ref decides to go to the pocket early then that’s going to happen.

Sandydragon wrote:Some cards but a bit late in the day.

I think the ref could have awarded a penalty try for the three fouls on the line with six minutes on the clock.

Then an illegal tackle stopped North scoring could have been another.

I’d like to see the penalty count because I feel it was heavily in favour of Wales.

In the end we were too slow at the start and we were always playing catch-up. Overall England were the better team.

Twice in a row I come out from a defeat at Twickenham thinking "**** me that could have been so much worse!"

That was actually the most comfortable 3-point win you could ever see, but the scoreboard say they scraped it so I guess we'll take that. 30 points and 3 tries at Twickenham isn't too shabby, anyway.

Wales' defensive strategy now appears to consist entirely of "keep the ball out of our 22", because visits into our 22 mean points every time. The baby has clearly been thrown out with the bathwater and it's not a "blip" any more. Our defence is simply not good enough. With just a little more resilience, we'd have been in range when England's discipline evaporated. As it was, we had to watch Farrell negotiating with the ref to find out exactly how much time off the clock they could trade per card. Cynical as you like but they wouldn't have had that chance if we'd been more than tackle bags for the first 40.

Sourdust wrote:Twice in a row I come out from a defeat at Twickenham thinking "**** me that could have been so much worse!"

That was actually the most comfortable 3-point win you could ever see, but the scoreboard say they scraped it so I guess we'll take that. 30 points and 3 tries at Twickenham isn't too shabby, anyway.

Wales' defensive strategy now appears to consist entirely of "keep the ball out of our 22", because visits into our 22 mean points every time. The baby has clearly been thrown out with the bathwater and it's not a "blip" any more. Our defence is simply not good enough. With just a little more resilience, we'd have been in range when England's discipline evaporated. As it was, we had to watch Farrell negotiating with the ref to find out exactly how much time off the clock they could trade per card. Cynical as you like but they wouldn't have had that chance if we'd been more than tackle bags for the first 40.

I wonder what difference Shaun Edwards would have made this campaign if Wales had given him a four year deal instead of the two offered.

A very sad loss indeed.

Damn!!!! So close in the end. Again we just needed another 5 minutes to finish them off.

Yes, it would be nice if the ref could have got the cards and/or penalty tries out a little earlier. Otherwise yet another team is rewarded for cynical play. (And that was with a ref who was relatively strict [ie compared with most refs] on England's indiscretions - it could have been a lot worse).

But it cannot be denied that the better team won.

normanski wrote:I wonder what difference Shaun Edwards would have made this campaign if Wales had given him a four year deal instead of the two offered.

A very sad loss indeed.

Keeping Shaun might* have helped, but I don't believe that was anything to do with a 2- vs a 4-year deal. That's just an excuse. He was always going to leave - the WRU had already appointed a new defence coach when Edwards started saying anything about staying, but I reckon that was just to boost his offer from France.

* although, seriously, is there anything in Shaun's technique that the senior players don't already know word-for-word, chapter-and-verse anyway? The main problem with Shaun leaving is that he's improved the French.

The better side won the match, and in all honesty they were 10-12 ponts better rather than 3.

We were rank in that first 30 or so and there's no hiding place. We are giving up soft points constantly, and until that's fixed nothing else will be.

But I also don't totally buy all the stuff about "Wales could only score when England were down to 13 men", either. England's players didn't willingly walk off the pitch, they were penalized for indiscipline in the face of Welsh attack. If we weren't that good, then why did England feel the need to constantly infringe to stop us? If WE hadn't conceded soft pens in the first half, we'd have been 9-3 up at the break. No-one is saying "Ah, England only scored those tries because Wales gave them attacking lineouts", are they? 95% of scores in a rugby match can be attributed to mistakes or indiscipline by the opposition. That's the game. Wales scored those two late tries because they forced the positions to do so, and England couldn't stop them.

Completely agree Sourdust. Those cards were the result of sustained Welsh pressure and we may have scored against 15 English players if not for the repeated infringements. There was a point where multiple English players were infringing for every one penalty awarded.

The real problem we had was our poor start. For much of the first half we weren’t in the game defensively. Forget dominant tackling, any tackle by Tomos Williams would have done for the first try whilst we constantly defend too tightly. We were luck to be only 11 points behind at the interval and whilst we won the second half, we leave these comebacks too late in the game.

Apparently we have a pack lacking in physicality so we can’t smash our way through games like England can. But that should not prevent an organised defence. That try we scored at the start of the second half was beautiful and I don’t think we would have done that under Gatland. Equally we we clinical enough to score twice more, but left other chances on the field. I like that we are trying to be more adventurous with ball in hand, but out defence needs to improve hugely if we are going to win games.

It could have been a lot worse.

I wonder how many of our players will be unfit for the next game? Mind you, Navidi and Sayjay certainly did not look underdone.

Dillon Lewis is starting to look like a regular vulnerability. He is a good prop but is he good enought? He does not seem to be developing. On the other hand Leon Brown, who was not up to Lewis' standard last season is continuing to develop. We could have done with Francis or Lee at his best.

Our defence is appalling, obviously going through some kind of transitional structural stress, we had better get it sorted out soon.

.

Graigwen wrote:It could have been a lot worse.

I wonder how many of our players will be unfit for the next game? Mind you, Navidi and Sayjay certainly did not look underdone.

Dillon Lewis is starting to look like a regular vulnerability. He is a good prop but is he good enought? He does not seem to be developing. On the other hand Leon Brown, who was not up to Lewis' standard last season is continuing to develop. We could have done with Francis or Lee at his best.

Our defence is appalling, obviously going through some kind of transitional structural stress, we had better get it sorted out soon.

.

I would have liked to have seen Brown starting with WGJ on the bench against Italy. It might have given us better TH options.

As you say we’re missing Francis and Lee who both give us some parity in the scrum.

Perhaps next Saturday is a time for a few experiments with personnel, especially on the bench. Zammit as replacement for North off the bench to give him 25 minutes of exposure. If Parkes or Tompkins are injured then North could come inside allowing Zammit a first cap.

I guess a lot will depend on how the Scots perform this afternoon for Pivac to introduce more youngsters but we aught to be writing off this season with an aim for the future.

Given my misgivings over North, I though he had a decent game yesterday. Some mistakes but he looked up for it and made some decent carries.

I do think yesterday’s game will take its toll. Navidi looked alright considering his lack of game time, same for Liam.

I’d happily echo the idea of Zammit in the bench instead of McNicholl who I don’t see the point of.

Second row could be a problem with Ball out and Shingler not too clever either.

We really need Francis back. It’s starting to become embarrassing.

Citing Commissioner has reviewed the match and:

Marler has been cited for groping AWJ.

Lawes has been cited for a dangerous tackle on AWJ.
At the time I winced when I saw it and was a bit surprised that it didn't seem to merit on on field review.

Sandydragon wrote:Citing Commissioner has reviewed the match and:

Marler has been cited for groping AWJ.

Lawes has been cited for a dangerous tackle on AWJ.
At the time I winced when I saw it and was a bit surprised that it didn't seem to merit on on field review.

Along with Tuilagi that’s three long match bans coming up.