[2014 EOYT] Wales vs New Zealand

[TRF_Cymro]

Both extremely valuable. Mike Phillips came on and was charged down, he then got told off by the referee

Felt the first comment was slightly a troll, as for the second, everyone knows.

 

[austingtir]

Cruden is not out of form. He goal kicked poorly but his general play was very good this tour. Or do you just look at the kicking stats?

No I look at his form all year and its been WELL down on his previous efforts. I still cant remember a game this year where one of our 10's stood out for decent tactical play.

Im sure if Hansen agreed that he was upto standard he'd of started.

 

[turmeric2015]

Stating the obvious but the final scoreline is very harsh on Wales. Saying that the ABs have been excellent in the second half in this tour.

The number 10 position is going to be a good headache next year. Slade looks to be in excellent form, things seemed to click a lot better when he came on and may have worked himself up the pecking order. Carter is class and if he stays injury free, you know he is going to be very good come next year and Cruden and Barrett have been groomed as the 1st and 2nd choice over the last couple of seasons. Going to be very hard to choose between the four.

At the end of the day Cruden might end up missing out when you consider the fact that the other three can cover at least a couple of positions. All of them need to work on their goal kicking though.

First and foremost, congrats to Wales for playing an impressive 65 minutes or so. I think for that amount of time they were on par with the ABs, perhaps even a tad better. ABs are the only consistent 80 minute team in World Rugby and showed again tonight why that makes such a difference.

Re first five - for me that game confirmed the fact that Barrett is a much better option of the bench. He was stunning from the time Slade came on, before that I thought he was rather disappointing, decision making was poor, in game kicking was not great, and goal kicking below average as well. He had a chance to prove he was a contender for the starting 10 spot, but I feel he did not take his chance. In the last 10 - 15min he was fantastic.

The abilities of Carter and Cruden to control a game are far superior to Barrett and for that reason alone they will be (and I think are currently) the preferred starting 10s.

Slade is making waves, but without getting a chance to start, he is not really in serious contention for starting 10.

 

[nzlizard]

Key things that jump to mind.

1. Barrett is not a starting 10, things looked more dangerous with Slade at 10 but Cruden is still our best attacking 1st five, Slade is the in form kicker.
2. I need to watch the game again in better quality as I missed heaps with the pauses and stutters

 

[Bazzy]

First and foremost, congrats to Wales for playing an impressive 65 minutes or so. I think for that amount of time they were on par with the ABs, perhaps even a tad better. ABs are the only consistent 80 minute team in World Rugby and showed again tonight why that makes such a difference.

Re first five - for me that game confirmed the fact that Barrett is a much better option of the bench. He was stunning from the time Slade came on, before that I thought he was rather disappointing, decision making was poor, in game kicking was not great, and goal kicking below average as well. He had a chance to prove he was a contender for the starting 10 spot, but I feel he did not take his chance. In the last 10 - 15min he was fantastic.

The abilities of Carter and Cruden to control a game are far superior to Barrett and for that reason alone they will be (and I think are currently) the preferred starting 10s.

Slade is making waves, but without getting a chance to start, he is not really in serious contention for starting 10.

Agree about Barrett. He seems to make a bigger impact off the bench. He also seems to be better at broken play and has done really well from the full back position but we've got plenty of good outside backs as well.

If Slade continues to play as well he has, it's going to be tough not giving him meaningful game time. Overall it's an awesome situation to be in though. After all we did need four number 10s in the last WC.

 

[donmcdazzle]

No I look at his form all year and its been WELL down on his previous efforts. I still cant remember a game this year where one of our 10's stood out for decent tactical play.

Im sure if Hansen agreed that he was upto standard he'd of started.

HAVE.

if you are trying to tell me he was out of form against England and USA? He was good in those games (other than goal kicking).

And youve forgotten the the games against England and Aus where he was in fire.

 

[Mikel92]

One thing I'd remind posters of though, while I agree Barrett isn't our "starter" based on that, in terms of Slade - it's one thing being masterful off the bench. It's another to do that by actually starting. Case in point, Barrett. Although Slade is certainly the best goal kicker we have at the mo, and I don't think it'd matter whether he started or not.

 

[james5000]

Stating the obvious but the final scoreline is very harsh on Wales. Saying that the ABs have been excellent in the second half in this tour.

The number 10 position is going to be a good headache next year. Slade looks to be in excellent form, things seemed to click a lot better when he came on and may have worked himself up the pecking order. Carter is class and if he stays injury free, you know he is going to be very good come next year and Cruden and Barrett have been groomed as the 1st and 2nd choice over the last couple of seasons. Going to be very hard to choose between the four.

At the end of the day Cruden might end up missing out when you consider the fact that the other three can cover at least a couple of positions. All of them need to work on their goal kicking though.

Form next year will be more important then now, but I can't help but feeling they may try to fit all four of them into the World Cup squad. At the moment i'd probably say top 3 on overall form would have to see Carter missing out.

I felt in this game the score wasn't actually that flattering, we were out playing them the whole game we were just making too many errors. I suppose those errors were forced by some great defence but Wales never looked like scoring too many points.

Slade has improved dramatically since 2011, if he keeps it up he's a must for the world cup. He definitely seem's to handle pressure very well. I remember during the 2011 world cup a chap by the name of Ranger i think was saying that playmakers were born they couldn't be coached LOL. He said Slade didn't have it in him, that rugby isn't a video game and you just couldn't click a button a give him vision LOL. Slade is proving that with hard work and self belieth you can make it, not saying he hasn't got natural ability but he didn't seem to have great game management and vision in the 2011 era. He's come a long way IMO.

 

[William18]

So Rhys Webb, the ABs were there for the taking and Halfpenny saying Wales just have to believe in order to win. How about Wales needing to be good enough in all facets of the game in order to win? Just great defence and line speed are not enough to beat the SH sides, let alone the ABs. The 61 years of hurt go on.

I agree.

Metres run: Wales 198 - 492 New Zealand

We made most of the play but Wales defended well and forced us into a lot of errors. Those sort of things do count for more in a RWC though. Just because we won this game or haven't lost to Wales since 1953 doesn't mean I would be uber confident playing them in a KO game.

Barrett is a good player but only for the bench. I like what Slade has done but he will have a tough job unseating the 3 incumbents.

 

[smartcooky]

Bullcrap who is then!

Slade is by far the best goal kicker out of the 4 of them and he's inform. Cruden is out of form. Carter is past it and Barrett is simply not good enough in tight test matches.

We'll have to wait until next year to see who's better but for me Cruden is the only one if he pulls finger that is a sure starter if he's playin well enough.

Yep. Things change up when Slade comes on with 25 minutes to go. We're 10-13 down, but after an initial knock on from a terrible pass by Aaron Smith, Slade takes control. Four tries later (three of them in a 10 minute period) and its 34-16


This match ought to be lined up for an episode of "Destroyed in Seconds"

 

[Mikel92]

Slade has improved dramatically since 2011, if he keeps it up he's a must for the world cup. He definitely seem's to handle pressure very well. I remember during the 2011 world cup a chap by the name of Ranger i think was saying that playmakers were born they couldn't be coached LOL. He said Slade didn't have it in him, that rugby isn't a video game and you just couldn't click a button a give him vision LOL. Slade is proving that with hard work and self believe you can make it, not saying he hasn't got natural ability but he didn't seem to have great game management and vision in the 2011 era. He's come a long way IMO.

Wasn't that Ranger poster an Aucklander though? can't be too surprised by silly posts like that, heh.

I think I remember him. Use to have it in for anyone born outside the region.

 

[smartcooky]

So Rhys Webb, the ABs were there for the taking and Halfpenny saying Wales just have to believe in order to win. How about Wales needing to be good enough in all facets of the game in order to win? Just great defence and line speed are not enough to beat the SH sides, let alone the ABs. The 61 years of hurt go on.

Wales were good enough for 68 minutes, but its an 80 minute game!

 

[donmcdazzle]

Yep. Things change up when Slade comes on with 25 minutes to go. We're 10-13 down, but after an initial knock on from a terrible pass by Aaron Smith, Slade takes control. Four tries later (three of them in a 10 minute period) and its 34-16


This match ought to be lined up for an episode of "Destroyed in Seconds"

there were also a whole host of subs from both sides that changed the game too. Slade was good, and accurate (other than the knock on off a bad pass), but let's not act like he came on and set up four tries. Nice cross kick for one, a nice regather in the lead up for another.

 

[austingtir]

HAVE.

if you are trying to tell me he was out of form against England and USA? He was good in those games (other than goal kicking).

And youve forgotten the the games against England and Aus where he was in fire.

England game maybe so thats ONE game. The Australia game the whole team showed up and just flattened them so your not going to take much out of that.

 

[Zapphod]

Stating the obvious but the final scoreline is very harsh on Wales. Saying that the ABs have been excellent in the second half in this tour.

I am not sure how people keep drawing these conclusions, the game is 80 minutes long and if you only play competitively for 60 of those minutes there is a good chance you will lose to a team that does play 80 minutes.

I don't recall anyone saying the final score line was harsh on the USA after all they were competitive for the first 10 minutes.

The score line is a reflection of the total game not just portions of it and as the saying goes "one point is as good as one thousand once the final whistle has blown" there are only winners and losers sometimes that will be the All Blacks sometimes it's not.

I understand the desire to be "gracious winners" but twisting the realities to placate peoples sensitivities is pointless, the All Blacks won because they are the better team which doesn't mean the Welsh are a bad team just not as good.

 

[donmcdazzle]

England game maybe so thats ONE game. The Australia game the whole team showed up and just flattened them so your not going to take much out of that.

Given he was very good in his last start, I don't get how that's out of form. Especially when the guy you're saying is in form hasn't even started a game for the ABs at 10 on this tour, and was average on the wing.

 

[austingtir]

I suspect its going to be pretty telling who Blackadder ends up running for the majority of the Saders season. Carter is going to have to pick his form up above his post 11 WC form trend.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I agree.

Metres run: Wales 198 - 492 New Zealand

We made most of the play but Wales defended well and forced us into a lot of errors. Those sort of things do count for more in a RWC though. Just because we won this game or haven't lost to Wales since 1953 doesn't mean I would be uber confident playing them in a KO game.

Barrett is a good player but only for the bench. I like what Slade has done but he will have a tough job unseating the 3 incumbents.

Unlikely ABs will meet in next year's RWC knockout stages the way the draw is. For it to happen they can only meet in the semis or final. I just can't see Wales getting through England, Australia, then SA to get to the semis nor can I see them finish top of Pool A to get the easier draw to the final. Look at it this way, this was Wales at home and virtually full strength and the ABs still beat them 5 tries to one. Any knockout game will be Wales at Twickenham. Wales peaked last year when they won their game of the decade v England in the 6Ns. They were found wanting in this year's 6Ns and against the SH sides, even though they probably should have won in the summer v SA. But that is the story of Wales - always hard luck stories.

- - - Updated - - -

Wales were good enough for 68 minutes, but its an 80 minute game!

Agreed it is an 80 minute game and Wales could not sustain it for that time.

In the 68 minutes they were good enough they did not create enough or score enough points to put them ahead to close out the game. Great defence and line speed to force AB errors apart - they were not good enough in other facets of the game. By 69 minutes they were knackered, hence space opened up and tries flowed for the ABs. Plus, I include the subs who came on showed Wales' strength in depth was not good enough to close out the game.

 

[austingtir]

Given he was very good in his last start, I don't get how that's out of form. Especially when the guy you're saying is in form hasn't even started a game for the ABs at 10 on this tour, and was average on the wing.

He's not a friggin wing you idiot! He's a fullback/10 these days more of a 10 as I remember he was always a handy fullback to.

I just dont agree with you on Crudens form its been average all year and anybody can tell his confidence is not what it was. Fact is he'd of started all of the big matches if his form was any good!

 

[Bazzy]

I am not sure how people keep drawing these conclusions, the game is 80 minutes long and if you only play competitively for 60 of those minutes there is a good chance you will lose to a team that does play 80 minutes.

I don't recall anyone saying the final score line was harsh on the USA after all they were competitive for the first 10 minutes.

The score line is a reflection of the total game not just portions of it and as the saying goes "one point is as good as one thousand once the final whistle has blown" there are only winners and losers sometimes that will be the All Blacks sometimes it's not.

I understand the desire to be "gracious winners" but twisting the realities to placate peoples sensitivities is pointless, the All Blacks won because they are the better team which doesn't mean the Welsh are a bad team just not as good.

I am not disagreeing with you, sides need to play for 80 mins. Wales weren't good enough to win at the end of the day.

What I am saying is that if someone who didn't watch the game looked at that scoreline, it would look like Wales were completely outplayed. That wasn't case. It was a very tight game for 65mins and we scored four tries in the last 15mins or so. We completely outplayed them in the last 15mins.