It was a strange old World Cup campaign for Wales – on the face of it, they would have been hoping for more than reaching the quarter-finals, which represents an obvious step back from 2011 when they made it a stage further.
But throw in their jaw-dropping injury list and their presence in the pool of death, and if you take a step back there are certainly positives to be taken. Here, we round up what went well and what went badly during their time at Rugby World Cup 2015.
WINNERS
Gareth Davies
Before the World Cup, Welsh fans were every bit as concerned about Rhys Webb’s injury as that of Leigh Halfpenny or Jonathan Davies. As it happens, Webb’s replacement was one of the standout players at the tournament. Davies sniped and darted at every given opportunity and scored five tries in as many games. His crowning glory, of course, was a sublime finish in the game against England which ultimately saw Wales put one foot in the knockout stages.
Dan Biggar
His goal-kicking was almost flawless, which all but negated the loss of Leigh Halfpenny, but more impressive than that was his ability to get a backline firing that chopped and changed by the week due to injuries. His performance against England will remain as one of the best individual outings of the tournament.
Warren Gatland
It is fair to say that Gatland knows what he is doing when it comes to Rugby World Cups. They peaked in 2011 at the right time to come within a whisker of the final, and although he will have been disappointed to make it less far this time, given their injury list and the pool they were in, you can make a very strong argument for Wales having overachieved. For that, Gatland takes a lot of credit.
Dan Lydiate
Lydiate has long been something of a marmite man in Welsh rugby – you either love his brand of no-nonsense, defence-based rugby, or you clamour for Justin Tipuric’s inclusion ahead of him and the faster style that would come with it. While the latter certainly has its merits – Australia have proved how effective it can be to play two opensides – there’s no doubt that Lydiate’s stock rose this tournament, particularly against South Africa when he was at the heart of an aggressive defensive effort that so nearly won them the game.
Shaun Edwards
Three tries conceded in five games that included matches against the free-running Fijians, the mega-powerful Springboks and the dazzling Australians is as good an endorsement of a defensive structure as they come. In fact, they are the only team to keep the Australians from crossing the whitewash all tournament, and when you consider that they have been crossing it for fun against most teams, that is massively impressive. Edwards’ contract is up for renewal apparently; frankly the WRU should be offering him the earth because there are few – if any – better in the business.
Luke Charteris
The beanpole of a second row secured the place in the engine room next to Alun-Wyn Jones that has been doing the rounds for years now. With stiff competition from the excellent Bradley Davies, and to a lesser extent Jake Ball, it was Charteris’ excellence at not only the lineout but the maul – where he brought chaos to the opposition’s efforts – that won him the plaudits, and the space alongside Jones for the biggest games.
LOSERS
Strength & Conditioning Programme
Wales’ obsession with being the fittest is well known, and their pre-World Cup regime sounded suitably gruelling. In fact, when they brought in ex-England and current Toulon supremo Paul Stridgeon, it is alleged he cut out other planned fitness camps/exercises so as not to overwork the players. Was he too late? Certainly, the body can only take so much and while it’s unlikely to be scientifically proved, the way the Welsh players dropped like flies would certainly suggest they had been taken beyond their limits.
Alex Cuthbert
The winger, who has for a while been amongst the best poachers around, has been in woeful form this tournament. Indeed, his place in the team has only been assured due to the astronomical number of injuries to other outside backs. Some of the vitriol he has come in for has been way over the top, but it’s fair to say that what Cuthbert needs is some time away from the international scene to rediscover his confidence and the try-scoring knack that comes with it.
Mike Phillips & James Hook
Two of the elder statesmen of Welsh rugby look unlikely to have much of a future in a Wales shirt under Gatland or, indeed, at all. Both were called into the squad after injuries but neither had any discernible impact on the tournament – Phillips, in fact, didn’t manage a single minute. With Gareth Davies so impressive, Lloyd Williams doing well from the bench and Rhys Webb to return from injury, it would take a miracle for Phillips to return to first choice status. Similarly, the lesser-heralded but similarly impressive emergence of Tyler Morgan, Gareth Anscombe and Matthew Morgan mean James Hook’s international future looks bleak.
The Scrum
Samson Lee looked short of game-time, only really hitting anything close to top form against South Africa. It was always going to be a huge ask for the inexperienced Tomas Francis to fill his shoes, and he struggled against more experienced operators in the England and Fiji games. On the other side of the scrum, Gethin Jenkins’ scrummaging technique was brought under great scrutiny not for the first time – and it was a surprise that Paul James was not given more game-time.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
As you know by now, we are hilarious, and you should be following us on Facebook and Twitter. 
A good read, and all very fair.
One minor point though: it’s Tomas Francis, not Thomas!
Don’t think you can call Phillips a loser – he showed himself to be very mature and a real team player with the way he handled his omission and subsequent call-up to the squad. People here were very impressed with the way he took it, the comments he made and the way he helped GD and LW when back in the squad (as they said so themselves).
Additionally, many of the injuries surely had nothing to do with any conditioning programme – LH and JD had ACL injuries, SW similarly, RW damaged ankle at ruck, LW broken bone in his foot, HA and TM dislocated shoulders. Seems like bad luck more than anything.
Fair point re Phillips, what I was really driving at is that the performance of the other scrum-halves means he’s unlikely to get a look in in the future. Agree that he seems to have got his head down and taken his medicine with minimal fuss, however.
Re the injuries – I’ve heard a few ex-players (Shane Williams being one) saying that if you push your body too far with these fitness regimes, it becomes brittle and you are more susceptible to injury. Now I don’t know if that’s a fact or if there’s any way you can prove it, but the sheer number of injuries suffered by one team makes me think it can’t just be bad luck!
Point taken re Phillips – although I personally think he should still be considered in the best 3 SHs, when Webb is back (instead of Lloyd Williams). But I doubt Gatland will pick him I have to say. Interesting info re Stridgeon cancelling fitness trips for that reason as well – hadn’t heard that reason given for doing so. And yes, if it is down to luck I hope it changes soon!
That’s a lot of winners for a team who lost twice to the big three, and barely looked like scoring a try ever. Good twenty minutes against England though. Tomas Francis’ absence in the negative column is interesting too, well and truly out of his depth.
I know I’ve said this on here before, and I hate to sound like a broken record; but in what world did Biggar get Wales’ backline firing?
For a long time I’ve said Biggar is an underrated player, and now the media have taken it to the complete opposite extreme.
His kicking was great off the tee and good out of hand. But I honest can not think of one game where Wales’ backline was impressive as a unit? Biggar surely has to take responsibility for that?
I can’t see how you can suggest Gatland had a good World cup, I’d say far from it. His coaching is four or five years out of date. At no point did a much vaunted back line look like working effectively despite the best efforts of Davies at 9. Biggars kicking from hand to often went down the throat of players in counter attacking positions. Wales played every move down one blind alley (Jamie Roberts passing ability makes Mathieu Basteraud look like Phillippe Sella) and butchered try opportunity after opportunity.
Look at the games they played (excluding Uruguay). Three tries against Fiji on a quick turnaround. Beat England only after they had a disciplinary implosion. Couldn’t score a try against 13 Australians (surely George North is in the minus column.)
And as for Edwards defence. Ripped apart on occasion by Fiji, exposed by England in first half, cruelly exploited by South Africa to win the game. Ok they kept the Aussies out but at the expense of kickable penalty after penalty, not defensive strategy.
All in all Wales had as poor a tournament as England and the blame can be laid at Gatland door.
On whether Wales had a poor tournament – I agree we certainly did not “over achieve”. A final was the target and we fell woefully short. We take a little bit of solace in the manner of not reaching it – our contests against the two SH teams were at least contests (and, given the amount of Welsh digging in the comments so far I’ll put my own in here by emphasising again that at least our game against them was a contest, not a rout) and we were hit by injury. But we still should have played better, smarter and with more go forward (though I wouldn’t summarise us in the way Jez has, he makes us sound like we didn’t have any clue at all).
What is odd is that after our poor tournament we are licking our wounds, ruing some whatifs (self inflicted ones, we’re not doing a coulda-woulda analysis of blaming anyone/anything else) and working out how we move on. Whereas England are using phrases like “find out what went wrong” when preparing their “review”. A review? A review to find out why England lost to two teams better than them? It is pomposity, I’m sorry but it really is, to need a review to find out why they didn’t “top the group” apparently the target against a) the Rugby Champ winners and b) a team of triple 6Ns title winners that has beaten them home and away since the last WC – I think we’re 50/50 on Eng/Wales results? It implies some sort of shock or confusion as to why these teams beat them? There was no form on the way into this WC to indicate Eng would do sig. better than Wales or Ireland, certainly not Australia. So I am mystified as to the language that now sounds this review because it just keeps making England look clueless if they’re really, really thinking that something other than simply being the lesser rugby team on the pitch was anything to do with not getting further.
As for us, a quarter final is ok (but no more than ok, and we demand more), we got out of the group of death and blooded some excellent youngsters and maybe, just maybe Gats is thinking hard now about the way we play but without throwing away our strengths (lots of detractors seem to demand we play like the 70s).
Brighty – you normally speak quite a lot of sense but your rant about England’s review is complete nonsense.
Of course a review is necessary into why the largest and richest rugby playing nation in the world failed to exit their group, tough as it was, in a home world cup given a coaching team that had been in place for 4 years and provided with all the support and infrastructure that they needed or wanted.
As for form, England’s form against both Australia and Wales in the last two years reads won 4, lost 0.
It was utterly, entirely reasonable to expect – given this HOME world cup as a target, given all the monies asked for, given a settled coaching team and given recent results – that England would have been able to achieve 1 victory against either Wales or Australia
A review is both appropriate and necessary.
Ok Pablito, it’s the language of the review that has me riled recently i.e. “disaster”, “what went wrong”, etc. It’s sport and when you’re not the elite team then you lose. SA losing to Japan needs a review as it is so against the odds, Eng losing to Aus and Wales is not against the odds. I agree they could have considered wins as entirely reasonable/possible (though the resurgence of Aus put that in the shade compared to last two years) but it now seems to be turning into a “we should have qualified, so why didn’t we?” when I think it was “we had a good chance to qualify, why didn’t we?”.
Also comments like Jez’s, all of the mealy mouthed usual guff about Wales and Gats, doesn’t help when I am trying to be sensible…
How am I being mealy mouthed when you seem to be claiming that England are arrogant in thinking we should have got out of their group? Of course England should have expected to get out of their group, otherwise why bother turning up? Do you honestly expect a nation, one that has got to two of the last three finals winning one, to turn up for a game thinking they are not expected to win. Of course not.
Also my ‘mealy mouthed’ comments are nothing of the sort. They are carefully thought out criticisms of the Welsh team, which is what this thread is about after all.
The fact that you cannot see what is plainly obvious to most independent viewers of Wales at this tournament is another reason why Welsh Rugby could easily go into a late 80’s style depression.
Carefully thought out criticisms?
“Exposed by England in first half”. What, by England scoring a mighty one try?
“Disciplinary implosion” – by the end of the Eng v Wal match Wales had scored one more pen than England. One. So the only team that “imploded” were the one with a single less penalty kick?
“played every move down one blind alley” – yes, if you watch every minute of every Wales match then every time we got the ball we did the same one thing. Every time.
I could go on but they’re so laughable, so Daily-Mail-quality appraisals of rugby, that they’re not worth it.
Risible.
As for “The fact that you cannot see what is plainly obvious to most independent viewers of Wales at this tournament is another reason why Welsh Rugby could easily go into a late 80’s style depression.” you’re just doing that distasteful thing of taking what you think is a single Welsh persons view (which you misunderstand) and project it as “the Welsh” view. I’m flattered you think my views (which you have wrong anyway) are so fundamental to the future of Welsh rugby. Just so you know though Gats and I don’t have many chats on selection and tactics and Rob Howley doesn’t return my calls since he moved out of the one big street that 90% of us share in Wales.
I’m sorry Bright but your single minded chip on the shoulder is frankly the risible thing here.
My criticisms are purely on a rugby basis. I make no assumptions about the Welsh people, culture or thoughts. Only on the inability I have seen, of very many Welsh Rugby supporters, to accept well meant and constructive criticisms levied at a team that time after time, at World cup level, have failed to achieve.
I’m glad you stopped short of accusing me of being a Tory, although comparing me to the Daily Mail is offensive enough.
Ha ha. I wonder if you genuinely believe what you write “well meant and constructive criticisms”. Yes, they were definitely that.
No assumptions about Welsh then in next sentence you say “very many Welsh fans” which is an assumption. How many? I reckon I’ve read comments or had chats with at most a few hundred English fans ever. It would be an awful leap for me to use that tiny amount to draw any generic conclusions. So if you want your points to be dealt with in the manner you seem to think they should be then stop all of this generalising of “the Welsh” mood about the World Cup.
It isn’t an assumption. It comes from the conversations I have had and read on this blog, Facebook, in the pub, in media print and on TV. You are not the only people I have had this discussion with. The main difference being in a lot of cases my protagonists have at least been open to suggestion and debate without accusations has have been thrown my way on here.
“A review? A review to find out why England lost to two teams better than them? It is pomposity, I’m sorry but it really is”
I sense Brighty that having read Jez’s comments, the red mists descended and you channelled your inner Enoch!
England’s performances, regardless of the results were so poor – given all the advantages they had; home advantage, lack of injuries (certainly compared to Wales), longer recovery times etc. Qualification was the bare minimum, but even if that hadn’t happened, and we just happended to get beaten by better sides having given it our all, probably could have been accepted. Instead poor selections, poor decsions both on and off the pitch, a lack of fitness and a complete uturn on tactics and stragedy from the past 2 years culminated in a national embarrassment.
So again I ask , are England the only nation in world rugby who are a) not allowed to start games with an expectation of winning and b) when they don’t win those games not allowed to ask why?
I’m being rhetorical by the way, I know your answers already.
Biggar is definitely a winner from this world cup – his defence was immense, he is amazing under the high ball and his place kicking is nigh on perfect.
However, in no way whatsoever did he get Wales’ backline firing!!!
I think the fact that England will review and Wales will fall back on the we were unlucky, we did well to get out group, it wasn’t a rout etc, is a reason why England will improve and Wales will stagnate.
Whether you like it or not NH rugby is at a serious crossroads. England will at least make attempts to understand why (much like that did in 1999) and as a result will do better in future.
Wales, however, will not see the writing in the wall that Gatland has taken the team as far as he can.
I’m reading Michael Lynagh excellent book blindsided which makes the point that most coaches have a natural 4-5 year life span before they need to go. Gatland is at that point. Question would be who do Wales look to to replace him.
Yes Jez, since your post 07 review, and your post 11 review you have marched so far ahead of Wales that we cannot see you over the horizon. In that time we have had the coach you dislike who has won 3 (or 4, I lose count? :-) more titles than England and reached 1 WC quarter final and 1 WC semi final more than England, all without any sort of a post-07-meltdown review (and believe me, Wales had an 07 meltdown).
I understand the comments about lifetimes of coaches and tend to agree with a lot of it – maybe, maybe Gats needs some fresh assistance or a bit of a Damascan moment but to claim 100% that he has taken the team as far as he can is just sour grapes, hilarious when you combine it with the notion you present that England will now definitely get it right on their 3rd review attempt…
1. I do not dislike Lancaster.
2. I have not claimed England are miles ahead. I am saying that England have accepted their under achievement and will make reps to address it. They may or may not be successful, but at least they will try. Wales, however, seem to think they have over achieved when in reality they have under achieved as much as England. They played one more game, Whoopie
You seem incapable of understanding the things written here Jez, even your own. You have claimed that England “will do better in the future” and “Wales .. will not see ..” as part of your claim that this review is a better approach than Wales post WC approach. To which I, and Anarky, have pointed out that you’ve done these reviews before and not benefitted from them in the way you suggest i.e. improved past Wales. So it’s fair for us to assume it won’t help you now either.
Then when failing to make that point sensibly you revert back to type and slag off Wales. Where, oh where, has anyone thought we “overachieved”? I’ve repeated myself here a few times about my appraisal of where we are but I don’t think you understand a series of points constructed to make an argument, you just go for Sun headline writing levels of subtlety.
Then you dismiss that we got one game further … which is an achievement or England wouldn’t be having a review as to why they failed to get out of the group. Don’t mistake me – getting one game further than England is irrelevant but getting to the knock out stages rather than being knocked out in the group stages is definitely preferable.
I get it – you dislike that Wales got further than you and need to predict hypothetical situations, backed up by laughable prejudices, that England will now improve and Wales will now stagnate, because this makes you feel better.
As for “I do not dislike Lancaster” … uh? Why are you telling me that? What do I care? It has nothing to do with any point I have made.
Oh really. So it’s ok for the world and his nephew to criticise England but when someone has the temerity to suggest that Wales were no better or as bad as England but will compound their error by at least not asking a few questions of a coach who in 8 years hasn’t really achieved that much outside of the six nations, then suddenly they are talking nonsense and are prejudiced. Strewth.
There you go with your inability to be coherent again.
You have not merely pointed out that Wales were not much better than England.
You have claimed, with substance, that.
– Wales are happy they overachieved
– Wales are happy they were lucky enough to get out of the group
– Wales will stagnate
– England will improve.
Etc. Etc. Forever. This is pointless. You say one thing then say something totally different which means a structured discussion is impossible so it is not worth going on.
Also good job in letting your prejudices completely ignore the point I was making that we are not happy we got out of the group, calling ourselves lucky, etc. It merely lessens the blow of not getting to the final – to summarise: yes we’re gutted we lost but we’d rather have lost in the quarters than the group. That is common sense. Each stage advanced is 1 better.
“I think the fact that England will review and Wales will fall back on the we were unlucky, we did well to get out group, it wasn’t a rout etc, is a reason why England will improve and Wales will stagnate.”
Jez you clearly have more faith in the RFU than I do. They have failed to learn the lessons since 2004, and I see no reason for optimism that this will change.
Jez you talk complete nonsense. England did exactly the same after 2011 and have got no better, you’ve appointed a panel to review what went wrong, made up almost entirely of those people who appointed the current regime! Laughable.
I also don’t understand your “4 or 5 years out of date” comments – they make no sense when you consider in the last 8 years those tactics have provided so much more than England in terms of results in both 6N wins and WC progression. It makes you look silly.
But there’s my point in a nutshell. Winning a 6n’s is about as devalued, after this world cup, as anything can be.
There is not one NH team that can compete with the SH teams, even Argentina. But whilst teams keep pointing at it as proof of their world beating credentials then the guys down under will keep etching their names on the William Webb Ellis trophy.
Now the only 6N team that has even got close to SH teams in the last ten years is England. And that’s because, if nothing else, they have the arrogance to try. Wales, against SH teams, as proven by the Lions need a handful of English, Irish and Scottish players to compete.
This is like the English boys trying to debate with Enoch.. I’ll leave you to it.
“when teams keep pointing at it as proof of their world beating credentials…” Who is doing this? I love this laughable idea that you can discount the 6Ns because it’s rubbish, then praise England, yet they play in this same rubbish 6Ns and they’re so bad they can’t even win the thing against supposedly poorer teams. It’s an amazing feat of self delusion to disown your teams poor shows in that tournament while praising their wins in non tournaments.
You obviously struggle in reading entire posts. At no point have I praised England, even the most one eyed fan woukd struggle to do that. Their tournament performance wasn’t good enough, hence the be need for review and action.
What I am suggesting is that a) Wales, if anything were only marginally better than England but b) if they fail to address that fact then they will never win a World cup and indeed could regress to a point where they were in the late 80’s.
Now the way England do review may be open to question. It may or may not work and I England may stay exactly where they are. But, it is infinitely more better a policy than sticking head in the ground and suggesting Wales are heading any other direction than the wrong one.
“Now the way England do review may be open to question. It may or may not work and I England may stay exactly where they are. But, it is infinitely more better a policy than sticking head in the ground and suggesting Wales are heading any other direction than the wrong one.”
You made that last paragraph up. Nobody is doing that. It’s your prejudice that makes you think that is happening.
I take exception to being prejudiced. I am not. I am making a constructive criticism that Wales haven’t achieved (they havent) and that they don’t appear to be doing anything about it (Gatland still head coach). If you cannot accept that without accusing me of being some sort of jingoistic pillock (which is what you are doing) then I’m afraid it is you who needs to look at what you are saying closer
Such small margins in sport, bar a fifteen minute implosion by England the whole tone of this article would be radically different. Wales went one more game than a pitiful England, and never looked an attacking force.
Wales fell short, also did England France and Ireland. Only Scotland looked v Australia the they were trying to win a game in the knockout stages.
You are right Benjit about what pushed my buttons here and you and Pablito make good points about the need for a review.
I think what looks odd from outside England is the manner of it. It’s very public – press releases etc. All seems focussed on making the media aware they are doing something rather than necessarily constructive?
Ireland for example have under achieved by their own targets but they do not seem to be doing the same. I suspect most teams will have a review but it won’t be so much about being seen from the outside. I know Wales have reviewed and that, for example, coaching and fitness changes are being considered.
To be fair to the RFU (something they do not deserve), I think they initially tried to keep it more low profile this time to not deflect from the Worl cup. I believe Ritchie stated the review would not take place until the Cup had finsished. However this has been somewhat undermined by the timing of the annoucements of both the (compromised) review panel and the salary cap review. This smells very much of a New Labour-esque “good day to bury bad news” type decsion, as they know damned well that both decsions stink to high heaven. This in turn has lead to the media picking up these stories when all eyes should be on the World Cup.
Should Howley and McBride fall into the “loser” catagory?
Gatland and Edwards have been with Wales since 07. That is a long shift for an international coach, especially as they have occupied the same positons. I recall Henry, Smith and Hansen swapping roles after 07 to keep them fresh and then Hasnen’s role changed after the win in 11. I do wonder whether one or both of them will look to move on and take on a fresh challenge.
Yes, I think they should. Howley survives total berating by the skin of his teeth as he can point to having to work with a 3rd choice backline so defence becomes paramount because most new combinations tighten up on defence first as it is easier to coach and practice. However, I’m not convinced that he’d have got much more out of our first choice backline but can’t prove that, so he gets another go.
I’m not sure at all what McBryde brings. Shaky lineout, wildly veering scrum qualities (we held up well against Aus, who had a stormer in the scrum the week before, struggled in the scrum against Fiji, went ok against SA – all over the place).
The big concern is that Howley and McBryde have their positions safe and it’s Edwards who we may be losing … Madness.
I would question (and this comes from a desire to see all 6N teams improving, before wails of your just anti Welsh bigoted English supporter start) that out of all four home nations the entire Welsh coaching staff should be most at risk. This comes from the viewpoint that they have been in charge in a period when they have had possibly the best players since the 70’s. They should have reached at least a RWC final, but haven’t.
As for other coaching set ups, England would be next shakiest. However, like Woodward in 1999, they should be given another chance and indeed don’t forget this is a coaching set up that masterminded a thumping of the AB’S, and so do have at least some form in competing with the teams down under.
Ireland and Scotland are at the start of a coaching pattern and both Cotter and Schmidt should take both forward in 2019 (and hopefully with Scotland resurgent will make the 6n’s more competitive.
Nothing should be taken from Gatland achievements. However, I think he didn’t have a great world cup and should probably look to move on.
How ley perhaps should get the job or Dai Young going forward.
Andy Farrell is that you?
Why should England coaches be given another chance? Genuine question, on results and performance we have fallen short for several seasons
Yes clearly a dedicated Sarries fan. He’s welcome to Andy Farrell and Barritt.
“like Woodward in 1999, they should be given another chance”
Bullsh*t Jez. Woodward had barely 2 years in post before the 99 WC and still got to the quarters. and don’t give me any cr@p about Woodward “inheriting” world class players – Johno, Hill, Greenwood, Back, wilko etc all flourished under SCW, whilst players like Ben Youngs, Lawes, Cole, Hartley, Wood, Ashton and Tuilagi (all capped under the much maligned Johnson) have all stagnated or gone backwards in their development under SL.
Also compare his record to Stu’s after 4 years and whilst SCW had no GSs he had 2 6N Championships where England were head and shoulders above the rest and was already building up a good record against the SH. Lancaster and his moribund coaching set up should have resigned after the Uraguay match but clearly are not men of honour or integrity.
ps. apologies to welsh fans for making an english centric comment on a welsh centric article but as you can see feel fairly strongly about the rewriting of history many Lancaster apologists seems to indulge in.
Masterminded a thumping of the AB’s? One game in 4 years keep them in a job? Blimey.
Also, they did not mastermind it. Robshaw, Wood and Launchbury in tandem had their game of their lives, as did Tuilagi in the backs. That is what won us that game. SL has proven time and again that his tactical nous gets us nowhere; let alone a good win against the AB’s.
If Edwards goes could it be for non-rugby related reasons? I vaguely recall a training ground bust up a few years ago that seemed to lead Gatland to take Farrell over Edwards on the Lions tour and an apparent “cooling” of their prevsiouly close relationship.
I have to think it can’t be for rugby reasons – for all of the criticism of Wales this WC nobody has anything but admiration for our defence.
The Welsh rugby results against the top tier nations (France no longer count alas) under Gatland have fallen into three categories.
1 – Comfortable defeat (1st test on the 2014 South Africa tour, almost every New Zealand game, England at Twickenham and Ireland at Aviva in 2014).
2 – Heartbreaking defeat (too numerous to name – almost every Australia match, SA in Nelspruit, SA in Twickenham, NZ in 2014). Almost all of these were lost in the last minute/last ten minutes with players unable to maintain intensity, having a brainfart and gifting point scoring opportunities to the opposition, or not quite having enough brilliance to snatch a win.
3 – ‘Sensational’ victory – England in 2012 and 2015 RWC, South Africa 2014, Ireland 2015 RWC warm up in Dublin. Almost all of these were won by small margins and were nail biters. In almost all of these, the opposition had the chance to win/draw the match in the last minute/last ten minutes, often gifted to them by Welsh mistakes and usually averted by insanely brave defence and/or the opposition having a brain fart of their own.
Every ‘sensational’ victory could have just as easily been a heartbreaking defeat. The fact that we’re defeated in these scenarios more often than not and the fact that we’re in the position to be defeated like this in almost every game points to stagnation rather than progression for me.
Is this overly harsh?
PS I’m ignoring the genuinely sensational win we had against England in 2013. That was, of course, magnificent.
I understand where you are coming from Charlie but I do not discount narrow wins. NZ just made a WC final, playing against a pretty dire SA team in that game, by 2 pts. One pen in the end the other way and SA are in the final. More often than not you drag yourself over the line in these games if you are good enough rather than hammer the oppos. More often than not, obviously, not always.
As for stagnating … I’m over 40. I have many, many more memories of Wales being hammered, hapless and downright laughably bad than I do of them being competitive, winning trophies, etc. so I admit I find it hard to see 10 years of glory (by 90s and early 00s standards) as stagnating because I’m viewing it over a 30 year period, not a 7-8 year one. I say this to be clear how this colours my view when people talk about stagnating, or going backwards, or not progressing, or anything else used when talking about how we “only” win Grand Slams but don’t beat the SH teams. Be clear – in the late 90s many were talking seriously about the death of Welsh rugby.
Which is why I am cautious and do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Gatland has revolutionised Wales – more professional, more depth, more focussed than ever before. With that he has brought a strict playing style that needs to change and improve to bring better results. Initially he brought this because giving the players their heads didn’t work – he doesn’t think it works for us. He has tried it and been bitten (Fiji in AIs etc. in his early years) so he moved back away from it. He thinks we are best served by being tightly marshalled. I disagree with him and want him to change this but I still think he is the best coach to do it. Take his pragmatism, his professionalism and drive and align it with some new thinking, so we don’t lose his brilliant qualities, and that works best for me.
I’m not a statto but I do remember someone else on here (Pablito?) producing some nums that showed that in general the NH teams get beaten regularly by the SH teams – even Ire/Eng, with an apparent image of doing well, have a less than 30% win rate in this WC cycle I believe? Their impression gets flattered with occasional awesome performances e.g. that NZ game. None of us beat a Rugby Champ team in this world cup.
So I’m left with … Wal better than Eng in the 6Ns, par with Ireland, worse against SH teams than Ire/Eng but Ire/Eng also woeful so what’s the advantage of being on a 30% win rate rather than a 5% one (or whatever Wales’ is)? So viewing Eng/Ire as our peers (something I could only have dreamt of 15 years ago) we seem to be doing something right and hence I can’t see blanket statements about needing to get rid of Gats as right. It is much more complex than that.
Also who, right now, could do a better job than Wales with Gats? Who else could we have? We definitely, definitely need to improve, it’s just the details of how we do that which some of us differ on and I’m set firmly in the “small steps at a time” camp given how fragile I have seen it all be in the past.
In ways you are right. Gatland maybe the right coach going forward (I personally think not) but it should, as a matter of course, be reviewed and public ally so.
Both NZ and Australia will even if they win.
How do you know NZ and Aus will have a public review?
We’ve had a review. If you follow the Welsh news you’ll see comments about such. What we’ve not done is a) formally appointed a committee b) played it all out in the media c) finished.
As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, I suspect all teams will have a review. None of them will make it as public as England’s and why should they?
Very well replied Brighty, although I don’t think South Africa were threatening NZ’s line in the last ten minutes (or the full 80 if you want to be particularly critical) in the way that opposition have battered Wales’ line in their close wins and defeats.
My early memories were of Wales getting crucified (not stretching as far back you though), fourth in the Five/Six Nations was a good year. The leaps and strides made under Gatland are plain to see and should rightly be applauded, but there’s clearly something missing.
It’s amazing and thrilling to see how far we’ve come since the dark days, but we’ve surely now reached the point to take it one step further up the mountain. I’m definitely not saying get rid of the guy – you’re right, there’s not a coach I’d back to replace him, except maybe Eddie Jones – but he’s got to make some changes. His mantra has always been ‘play against the best to improve’ and we’ve been playing against the best since 2008 and the scorelines haven’t changed from that initial brave leap forward from the start of his tenure.
You’re right that Ireland and England’s record against the SH nations isn’t great either, but they’ve still won more than us and there have been games in which they were palpably superior (Ireland against Aus and SA last autumn, that NZ game).
I think that is entirely fair. And we’ll put. An will undoubtedly put the backs up of some!!!
I for one am very proud of Wales since 2005 after the generally abysmal 80’s 90’s. Sorry to repeat our achievements below but some seem to have forgotten. Grands Slams in 05 , 08 &12 & World Cup Semi Finalists in 2011 Champions again in 2013. Winning Lions (Welsh) Tour 2013. Best NH team in 2015 RWC by a distance. England over the same period ????
pps i was in the stadium Sept 26th 2015 England 25 Wales 28 & also 2013 Wales 30 England 3 throw that 2-0 stat in (clearly stand out fixtures) & i am comfortable at least that Wales have overachieved 2005-2015. More to do “Warren” but thank you for restoring pride in the famous Red Jersey. Cymru Am Byth.
Exactly Steve,
Too many England fans seem to think that their team always wins v the SH top 3 whenever they play them and that Wales always lose.
Well Wales did SA in 2014 and if donkey had not given away a penalty try in 2nd test they would have beaten then and in C++tbutt had not played like a total tw+t again Wales would have been in RWC semis and lsot heavily against the ABS
England need to consider that…..
1: They usually lose v Australia (9 out of the last 15 games)
2: almost always lose to SH (not beaten them since 2006..that’s 12 games )
3: almost always lose to the ABs (but did beat the ABs once in the last 16 games).
England fans obsess about that one game v the ABs of 2012. They think it happens every year and it does not.
4: They cannot understand why England don’t beat Wales in every game they ever play. As per England do v Scotland.
Having watched Wales since the mid 70s I thought I’d never see 1 GS again let alone the 3 you refer to and there were 2GSs that we let slip through our fingers at the outset of both 6n in 2015 and 6n 2013 through 40 mins of poor rugby in the 1st game of the tournament.
I suspect all these English bloggers would love to have the record Wales have in the Gatland era (plus the 2005 GS under Ruddock) But they don’t. I’d rather win 3 GS and a 6n than 1 RWC and then nothing afterwards for a decade and a half.
One golden year does not a legacy build. We can all see that.
They cannot bring themselves to admit what Hitler/Downfall parody states on you tube
‘ ‘We lost to those chippy, sh+tty little midgets and we are largest Germanic nation playing this game called rugby. We’ve even got the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas in Buckingham Palace..How did we lose???????’
I think that really sums it up.
So so many England fans fell into the trap of believing all the hype ahead of RWC 2015, the observations of learned and erudite English men like Guscott, Woodw+nk and Inverdale who all hailed England as conquering heroes b 4 a ball was even kicked.
All the English press/media, the adverts for O2 and ‘We back ourselves at home’ etc etc.
Ultimately both Wales and Aus made the England team and the so-called Rose bandwagon look so stupid when their own RWC ended after 17 days.
It is something they will never live down and deep down they know this too.
They just will not admit it..that RWC 2015 has been a disaster for English rugby when it was supposed to be being rebuilt ala
‘House of Lancaster-how 1 man rebuilt English rugby’ pub Aug 2015
Even at half time v Aus in RWC 2015 we had WoodW+nk and Jonny Jesus telling us that
‘England are not out of this yet’
Deary deary me ..what game were they watching..oh I know watching with the same Rose-tinted specs that had WoodW+nk and Guscott telling us in 2013 at half time 9-3 to Wales that……
‘England are not out of this…..not by a long way’.
English bloggers…just accept that your team was not good enough from 2004-2015 to win a GS or get out of the pool at your own RWC. They overachieved at RWC 2007 and were an embarrassment at RWC 2011.
As far as Wales winners and losers I’ll take the blooding of new players, the escape from the pool of death and feel disappointed that C+ntbutt cost Wales a semi final place.
But I know in my heart of hearts that Wales were finished b 4 the SA game ended.
You could see how exhausted they all were. They were out on their feet and the AB game would have been lambs to the slaughter and a 40+pt defeat and some people would be calling for Galtand to go.
The English fans need to stop believing the pro-English papers, stop listening to the pro-English tv broadcasters and look at the evidence in the cold light of day.
The warning signs were there in the game v Fiji at RWC 2015. Yes it ended with 5 points to England but England only won that because Fiji had no kicker and Fiji lost possession at the end trying to run out of defence and that was where try no 4 came from.
England were really poor in that game and under pressure at scrum and lineout in that game. Areas of traditional English strength.
If you want to comment on rugby, comment on the facts not on what the English media tells you the facts are.
As Richard Nixon said to US reporters on his premature retirement from frontline politics in 1962
‘It would be nice for once if you reported what Nixon actually said and not the words you say that Nixon said’