Why is it flawed? Show me a precedent where a team has averaged such a low number of tries scored per game in run up to a World Cup and ended up winning it and I'll accept you have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanton
Printable View
Why is it flawed? Show me a precedent where a team has averaged such a low number of tries scored per game in run up to a World Cup and ended up winning it and I'll accept you have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanton
Show me a team that’s conceded as few tries and maybe you have a pointQuote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
What I mean is that you could see situations like you had in football where match officials were told some time ago that any benefit of the doubt with offside decisions would no longer go to the defending team, they would go in favour of the attacking side. Also, the rules to rugby are always changing and if there was a will to encourage more attacking play, I'm sure it would be possible for interpretations, as well as actual rules, to be tweaked accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieccfc
Also, I'm old enough to remember when tries were only worth three points, then they went up to four and now to five - in each case, the justification for the change was to encourage more attacking play. It's well before my time, but drop goals were once worth more than tries - think it was four points.
I think about like some of the old England sides, they could open up and go all out attack, they have the talent if they need to, but they have been so efficient at grinding down teams that they haven't needed to
I've only checked England in the run up to the 2003 World Cup and, besides scoring fifty per cent more tries than us in the comparable fourteen game run, they also conceded fifteen tries in that time - we've conceded nineteen.Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanton
England were clearly the favourite for the tournament and head and shoulders above anyone in the northern hemisphere at the time, I don't think anyone is making the same claims about WalesQuote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
All I was doing was what I was asked to. Anyway, if England were really "clearly" the favourites for the 2003 World Cup (not sure they were mind) and people are not making the same claims about Wales, it seems to me that the reason for such a state of affairs could well be that they had a lot more try scoring potential sixteen years ago than we do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
At the risk of sounding pedantic, what you’ve done is identify that it doesn’t matter how many tries you score, if you are tight in defence you’ll win more than you lose. It doesn’t matter how many more tries England scored. They’d have still won the majority if not all those games if they'd scored the same number of tries that we have - because they conceded so few.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I love the attritional nature of this Welsh team - I think it makes for great viewing personally and don’t subscribe at all to your theory of it apparently being dull to watch and ‘bad’ for the future of the game. They’ve adapted And found a winning formula. All football teams don’t play the same styles, probably much to your chagrin, particularly where CCFC are concerned
No. It was because they won games. Come on now.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
This this and this again. We outscored England three tries to one in the World Cup quarter final in 2003. It didn’t matter because Wilkinson kicked us to death and we lost. I cannot remember much squealing back then about England winning the World Cup on the back of Wilkinson kicking so many penalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost
World Cups are usually won by pragmatic sides, South Africa in 95 and 2007, Australia in 99 and England in 2003. They won on the back of strong defences rather than free flowing rugby.
Gatland and Edwards have instilled a disciplined style of play backed up by brilliant defence and fantastic back rowers. I’m not sure if even the All Blacks have such strength in depth in their backrow.
If we win the World Cup using this style of play I wont give a damn. No one has criticised Ireland for all their recent success but they certainly haven’t been playing great rugby. Quite why some of our own on here are talking down Wales baffles me. If we win the Wotld Cup there will be no rule changes.
This thread is so funny. I've said "I'll be as thrilled as anyone if we win the World Cup and, on a personal level, I wouldn't be too bothered about how we went about doing it" and yet by using statistics and what I see with my own eyes to make the point that we aren't the most entertaining of teams and we have limited attacking potential, I'm being accused of somehow being disloyal to my country.
The point was made that England relied on Jonny Wilkinson's kicking in winning the World Cup in 2003 as if that makes the rugby that Wales play less defensively minded. I replied that yes they did, but then did the research to show that they scored half as many tries again as we have done and conceded fewer than we have done. I challenged anyone to find a team that has won the World Cup who had scored fewer tries over a comparable pre tournament period as we have in our fourteen consecutive wins and no one has yet - instead I was challenged to "Show me a team that’s conceded as few tries and maybe you have a point" and I've done that, but still no one thinks I've got a point!:hehe:
Now we're into territory where people are making out they love the way we play. I can only assume that they would be just as enthralled if it was another country (England?) who were winning all of those consecutive games while showing so little attacking flair. To repeat myself, I'm really happy about our success and wouldn't be bothered at all if we won the World Cup playing the same way, but all any other country with an identical record to ours over the past fourteen games (right down to tries scored and conceded) would get from me would be grudging admiration.
I’m with TOBW even if no one else is. He’s merely stating facts and interpreting them and I cane to the same conclusion. England have looked far more exciting going forward this tournament than anyone else. It’s not just a case of scoring more tries. In that first half against Scotland, they played some breathtaking stuff. But Wales won that tournament by getting all the basics right, time and time again and with huge determination, typified by Alun Wyn Jones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
You are becoming a right Tory boy ToBW. Shameful stuff. No one has said we are loving the style of play but it’s highly effective. How attack minded were England when they played us? It was all kick kick kick.
Look at the World Cup over the past twenty years. The teams with the best defences tend to win. Just enjoy the ride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
England are flat track bullies. What attacking rugby did they play against Wales?
Yeah, agreed. That wasn’t exactly their best performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearcey3
I pointed out that Wilkinson had played as huge role in England's world cup win - he did. I said so in response to this comment from you "Both in terms of the statistics and what we see out on the pitch, our defensive play looks to be good enough for a World Cup winning team, but the statistics and the evidence of what our eyes have been showing us for a year and more tell us that our attacking game isn't up to those lofty standards." I think that was a fair comment. I didn't claim for an instance that it inferred Wales were not defensively minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
You clearly have a gripe with someone but I fail to see how it could be me.
Bob. You are one of the best and most sensible contributers on this forum, but you seem to be like a dog with a bone in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Since I started watching Wales as a youngster in the days of Phil Bennett, JPR, Gareth Edwards etc, we have always had some of the most skilfull attacking players, and the some of the best kickers in world rugby, but we’ve failed on the biggest stage many times.
We’ve never won 14 games in a row before, and that is all down to our defensive organisation, grit and determination.
I don’t think anyone in this thread has disagreed with your assesments, but you seem to be putting it across as some form of handicap.
When I said in an earlier thread, that we may not have enough to win the next World Cup, I wasn’t meaning attacking wise, or defensively, I meant mentally.
I’d say we now have the perfect balance, between attack, defence and game management we’ve had since the RU World Cup first began.
We go into this World Cup in Japan, for the first time imo, with as much chance of winning it as anyone.
I agree with William. We might not win it, we more than likely won't in fact, but we certainly won't do it without this defence. If it comes at the expense of some attacking creativity, then so be it.
Our 2005 Slam was great attacking rugby, offloading in the tackle etc, it was great to watch. But had there been a world cup that year we'd have got pulverised vs a southern hemisphere team.
This time, we know we can compete physically and tactically, I think it's that mental strength to get through the final ten minutes against the all blacks that we still don't know that we have.
Apologies for misinterpreting what you wrote - I can only say that I'd become so used to being disagreed with by everybody in this thread that I jumped to a wrong conclusion when I saw your message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost
I've had my say on what I think and I've not got much else to add except that I still believe that people are letting their hearts rule their heads in this thread and if, for example, we were talking about Ireland with them having exactly the same record as Wales' over their past fourteen matches, I'm pretty sure I would have had more people agreeing with me.
Yet Ireland were the favourites for this years 6 nations and #2 in the world. We destroyed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Perhaps another way of thinking about it for you would be the number of times our attack caused teams to give away penalties in advanced areas. We chose to kick for goal because of game management (exactly the right thing to do under the circumstances). You don’t know how many of those plays would have resulted in tries if they’d run their course or whether we’d have scored tries if we’d kicked for the corner instead of the posts. The team reacts to the situation on the field. If a game is clearly won then teams are more expansive. It’s easy to keep scoring tries when you’re way out in front
Wales aren’t 20 points better than every team we play which means we probably have to take the points that our attack present us through the penalties they win, BUT at this moment in time we are better than everyone else bar New Zealand.
I understand where Paul’s coming from but I do think he’s being slightly harsh as I think we can play an expansive game if required
:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson