[RWC19 Warm-Up] - Wales vs England

[Astrodragon]

Having had a chance to rewatch the game, I thnk England will have big issues in the later stages of the WC (while I'm Welsh, I'm trying to be objective here)
England have some very good players, especially big fast players. These are being used well in the game plan of fast offense, ramming into the opposition and offloading. It worked against Wales in the first game.
But. There's a but.
It seems to be their only plan (and I dont think they are hiding that much for the WC, its just a slightly better version of how they played in the 6n).
Its a good plan against weaker teams, or in a one-off match. But as Wales showed on SDaturday, you can nullify it.
By the later stages of the WC, you are playing good teams whos been watching you for a month, and will have worked out exactly what they need to do. Englan, if they are to do well, need a plan B, and I see no signs of this so far

 

[ForumWhore]

Having had a chance to rewatch the game, I thnk England will have big issues in the later stages of the WC (while I'm Welsh, I'm trying to be objective here)
England have some very good players, especially big fast players. These are being used well in the game plan of fast offense, ramming into the opposition and offloading. It worked against Wales in the first game.
But. There's a but.
It seems to be their only plan (and I dont think they are hiding that much for the WC, its just a slightly better version of how they played in the 6n).
Its a good plan against weaker teams, or in a one-off match. But as Wales showed on SDaturday, you can nullify it.
By the later stages of the WC, you are playing good teams whos been watching you for a month, and will have worked out exactly what they need to do. Englan, if they are to do well, need a plan B, and I see no signs of this so far

Would you have come to the same conclusion for Wales if the 2 warm up games had been the other way around? Wales only play one way and it worked in one game, didn't in the other. And let's be honest, in the game it worked, it was a gnats whisker away from not working at all and the game ending in a draw. I know you haven't displayed huge optimism in this post but I do think the Welsh are the team out of the top 6 who are most likely to be found wanting after the group stages. Bookies tend to agree too.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The main thing is Wales rely on keeping the opposition score low. All it takes is for a slip up in defence and a team can be through. England were able to punch through the Welsh defence more than once but we're just **** poor at getting to our own breakdown. This allowed Wales to get turnovers and also get away with breakdown infringements. England have a reputation for being poor at the breakdown so if there is an apparent turnover against us, we are more likely to be penalised than the opposition. Likewise getting scrum penalties over Wales because it was deemed we had been on top of Wales in that area.

I think England have shown that sides can break Wales down and of they are better disciplined, Wales can struggle. Conversely, Wales struggle to her through a defence that is already set up.

Wales and Ireland rely a lot on conceding few penalties and on their opponents conceding a lot. If teams tighten up their own discipline, it becomes much more problematic.

What would I give for am England side that actually supported the ball carrier and didn't give away a ton of stupid penalties. When was the last time we actually conceded fewer penalties than our opposition.

 

[Jashay]

I entirely agree about the breakdown; England are a vastly different force when people like Underhill, Curry and Wilson are about.

Speaking of which, apparently Eddie thinks Curry and Underhill will be ready for the Ireland game. I'd rather he didn't rush either back if they aren't 100%, but I'd love to see how some of the combinations of Curry, Underhill, Wilson and Ludlam play out in the back row.

 

[ncurd]

Whilst I don't think rushing a team together is a good thing I do think this is the EJ need to target as 'first choice warm up' because lets face it what will we learn against Italy?

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

Fair play to the Welsh for their victory in Cardiff and number one status - congratulations! However...

To read anything into England's chances at the World Cup from either of these games is verging on madness:

1. Even assuming the results of these games mattered (which they don't), we ended up 1-1 across 2 games against a Welsh side that was as close to full strength as possible. We were starting a side that included, at most, 4 of our 1st XV. The loss also came in Cardiff, with the roof closed, against a team that had a massive amount to play for, and won by 7 points with a try scored under very unique circumstances.

2. To suggest that this team only has one way of playing based on a warm-up game where the first choice in the positions highlighted below didn't start, really doesn't make sense. Even if Eddie isn't holding parts of the game plan back (which I highly doubt), the sheer volume of changes to the team that played at the weekend will dramatically alter the way they play as soon as you move past phase 3 or so.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Bold = first choice not playing (Also could argue that Watson is not first choice on the wing when Nowell is fit and firing).

3. Generally speaking I think people are underestimating the impact that England's plan A will have if everyone is fit. We are still yet to see a true first choice XV with all of our power players fit and firing - something I don't think any team will be able to live with. Obviously it's dependent on Mako, Sinckler, Itoje, Curry, Billy, Manu and to a lesser extent Big Joe all staying fit, but if that does happen, I think plan A will serve pretty well against pretty much any team.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Good points Xsypher I think the big problem is we just haven't seen the first choice XV play nearly enough consistently together. All very well having plan A, but the first choice XV need to have played together for long enough to know plan A back to front by now. That's not even getting to a plan B.

I got criticized during the Wales v England game for saying England players were just not switched on for the Wales try. I am not going revisit the rights and wrongs of the ref's decision to restart play. But to me it was just a little sign that regardless of who plays England were just not switched on in that moment. There are other sign during the 6Ns v Wales and Scotland that this team still can't stop the momentum when it's going against them. It's that nous that is built up from playing together over a long time. You just can't cheat this process in a RWC.

So I am not convinced that it'll just be all right once the first XV play. Yes it should be good enough to get out the pool stages (still no guarantee) but I still can't shake the feeling the flaws will be exposed eventually.

 

[Rinkadink]

England struggle with attacking. Particularly providing a sound platform of attack (although this can happen, just inconsistently) and the actual attacking structures especially outside of traditional set piece. Weirdly in the games England have shown their better attacking prowess they've also conceded a lot. It's almost like it's one or the other.

For me it's not a case of plan B as such, but coming up with a plan that functions well in varying circumstances.

 

[Scotty]

Honestly if EJ is right i want a full strength italy bar billy, i wsnt to see

Mako(genge if mako isnt fit) George sinks itoje kruis underhill curry wilson youngs faz may manu JJ(slade) watsom daly

LCD Genge(marler makes bench if mako out) cole(or marler to practice TH....) Lawes Ludlam heinz ford big joe.

See our Plan A in full swing and get minutes for our first team and see the impzct these starters over the last couple of weeks make.

Obv if players arnt back fully fit and its a risk to play the likes of underhill curry mako ect. Dont play them but my point is we need a full strength game beford the WC and Ireland will be tough and close to the first game. Id say play strong vs italy, experimental vs ireland and strong in first game vs Tonga.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/...ndment-following-contentious-wales-try/618569

One last one to finish this thread off

 

[bushytop]

https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/...ndment-following-contentious-wales-try/618569

One last one to finish this thread off

Good job we scored that try before the amendment then I reckon .

 

[Cymro]

https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/...ndment-following-contentious-wales-try/618569

One last one to finish this thread off

Once again Wales get the better of England and World Rugby change a law to accommodate. That's what the power of a 50 million population and the richest union can do for you I suppose. Changing the scrum laws after the 30-3 game in 2013 springs to mind...

For the record, I don't disagree with this change. But the slating of the referee is off the mark as he did nothing wrong on Saturday. England weren't switched on, simple as that.

 

[ncurd]

I'll just add how collsally stupid it is to allow a team to go man down due to HIA replacement. Way to encourage teams to not send their player for a HIA.

Still at least it's ahead of Cricket with its no actual minimal guidelines about return from concussion.

Have we actually established if Bigger was still allowed to make a quick tap? Because it still appears the ref got that wrong.

 

[Cymro]

I'll just add how collsally stupid it is to allow a team to go man down due to HIA replacement. Way to encourage teams to not send their player for a HIA.

Still at least it's ahead of Cricket with its no actual minimal guidelines about return from concussion.

Have we actually established if Bigger was still allowed to make a quick tap? Because it still appears the ref got that wrong.

It was at the referee's discretion, so yes it was fine.

 

[ncurd]

It was at the referee's discretion, so yes it was fine.

Citation Needed - Sorry seen plenty of people saying yay or nay on this front I want a definitive answer.


Just a note with the amendment it specifically states HIA's shouldn't this be the rule for all substitutions?

 

[Cymro]

Citation Needed - Sorry seen plenty of people saying yay or nay on this front I want a definitive answer.


Just a note with the amendment it specifically states HIA's shouldn't this be the rule for all substitutions?

Citation, here you go: https://www.world.rugby/news/444384?lang=en

Not sure about general substitutions.

 

[ncurd]

Citation, here you go: https://www.world.rugby/news/444384?lang=en

Not sure about general substitutions.

I'm referring to quick tap being allowed to be used as a way of restarting the game post TMO of which I've seen nothing.

Fully accept the HIA thing which was just stupid.

 

[RedruthRFC]

A good example of why the calls for the law book to be simplified are daft IMO. The laws are confusing because they don't explain everything that you need to know to play a game of rugby.

 

[Every Time Ref]

So it seems that, unbelievably, there isn't a rule that says "after a break in play, no quick taps. The referee will wait for both teams to ready before allowing play to restart".

Honestly, every ref I have played under has done things this way, it sounds like almost everyone (including international players) believed this rule to be in place, plus it's really obviously common sense fairness.

Why the **** is this not a rule?

 

[Scotty]

Ref allowed it, tmo didnt contest it nor did lines men...the try is good. It shouldnt have been but its no diff to a ref missing a knock on or forward pass and the try standing.

Id rather it be called back and correct decision made but things get missed all the time.

The rule is changed and they will be hotter on it but no action should be taken with regards to the player or final result.