1. England strike first World Cup blow
Warren Gatland has been one of the most outspoken amongst the Six Nations coaches and players with his view that the Rugby World Cup later this year is what matters most at the moment. Others claim it is about the here and now, and while that is important, the World Cup trumps it all. It is why England’s victory in Cardiff on Friday night did matter in the context of the World Cup, despite what anyone says outwardly. The fact of the matter is, when the pool game at Twickenham comes around, England will be able to tell themselves that on the last two occasions, they have beaten Wales. Since the humbling in Cardiff in 2013 they have got it right tactically and nullified Wales’ preferred way of playing. There may well be an element of Gatland not wanting to overplay his hand so close to the World Cup, but he risks damaging the players psychologically before then – you could see how distraught they were at the final whistle on Friday.
2. Deja vu
On Friday night Wales failed to get their big men on the front foot. It meant they didn’t enjoy a good platform when they had the ball, and it made Rhys Webb’s job difficult. He didn’t have a good game, and fly-half Dan Biggar couldn’t spark anything from his backs. It all sounds very similar to the malaises England experienced over the autumn, and what is showed is that there has to be some other way of getting your team on the front foot when the guys that are supposed to be doing it, aren’t. England this time looked to Jonathan Joseph and Anthony Watson to dance their way over the gainline rather than bludgeoning it, and it worked. Wales’ most potent attacking threat came from their smallest player, Leigh Halfpenny. There’s been lots of talk about ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’ since their loss, but they don’t need a whole new plan, they just need to get guys like Halfpenny on the ball more often when their big runners are being consistently chopped down.
3. Better but still not good enough
Scotland went to Paris with a well-earned sense of optimism surrounding them. There was the belief that they could win at one of the toughest places to go in the Six Nations. And for a while, it looked like they might. Certainly in terms of the actual rugby that was played on the night, they were more than a match for their more illustrious hosts. Mark Bennett showed glimpses of the elusive running that has made him such a sensation for Glasgow, while Stuart Hogg was back to his magnificent best in attack. And yet for all the increase in attacking endeavour, there was still an undercurrent of careless knock-ons and, more crucially than anything else, needless penalties in dangerous positions that Camille Lopez duly slotted. They may have scored the only try of the game, but the French didn’t need to score any, such was the indiscipline of the Scots. It is the one are they desperately need to improve if they are to beat the best.
4. Easing into it
Ireland got the defence of their title off to a winning start in Rome, and looking at the scoreboard, it was a comfortable one. But there wasn’t a great deal of panache to the performance, and it was a pretty simple game-plan – keep it narrow for most of the game and exploit any gaps later on. It won’t be enough against the better sides, a category into which every other side fits at the moment – Italy look some way short of having what it takes to win a game this year. To be fair to Ireland, Paul O’Connell himself said they planned to ‘ease into the game’, and having decided not to take the risk on Jamie Heaslip, it’s clear they didn’t want to give their hand away in the opening round. They will play plenty more rugby in the following rounds, not least when Johnny Sexton returns to fitness – he is the one man that is irreplaceable in their line-up.
5. The poor relation
What a shame it is to see Italy so utterly not at the races. Two years ago, they beat Ireland and France at home and set what looked to be excellent foundations for the World Cup, given those two are in their pool. Fast forward two years and they have moved backwards at an alarming rate. They managed just one win in the 2014 calendar year and have put their faith at fly-half in a Kiwi journeyman with just half a season of PRO12 rugby under his belt. It is a real shame and slightly baffling to be honest – the core of the team is hugely experienced and they do have a host of names who all perform consistently well for clubs at the very top of the European club game. Whatever the answer is, it already looks incredibly difficult to see past another wooden spoon coming their way, especially with an away trip to a rejuvenated Scotland this year.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
31 replies on “Six Nations 2015 Round 1: 5 things we learned”
“There’s been lots of talk about ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’ since their loss, but they don’t need a whole new plan, they just need to get guys like Halfpenny on the ball more often when their big runners are being consistently chopped down.” Spot. On. Add Liam Williams on one wing and we’ll see a lot more attacking play. Argument for Scott Williams in for the not-quite-sharp JD as well to do the same.
Brighty do you not think Wales’ plan b went when ickle Shane retired? Certainly the set of Williams you mention would provide a different option to Warrenball.
Part of the reason why I am so pleased both Ford and Joseph did well was that it now means that England have an alternative game plan to Bomber’s preferred bosh/ Manu / kicking/ Farrell orientated game plan.
Not really as he wasn’t a plan B, he wasn’t a plan at all. He was a force of nature that popped up and did stunning things. Any team looks poorer and less exciting without him.
Wales have the players and the skillset to execute – what stifled us on Friday night was losing the collisions which, as this article points out, led to slow ball that we couldn’t execute much with. Put England on the back foot and it would also have been more of the kick/bosh from them but we just didn’t do that in the second half because we had poor aggression, a scrum half having a mare, wings who were totally out of it and a 1/2p on one leg for the last 30 due to his oft criticized daredevil tackling technique. How Attwood and/or Haskell didn’t get MOTM … just goes to show the pundits don’t have a clue how that match was won.
A lot of this reminds me of the Worsley v Roberts match from a few years ago – Wales were going to steamroller England but England just upped their aggression. Conversely 2 years ago we were on top in every collision. If we could bottle exactly how to make the players get that 1% right every single time we’d be world beating coaches.
brighty be honest here, you must have been embarrassed with the las vegas/x factor beginning? and tunnelgate. robshaw made your lot look like right dicks!! and then to go on and lose hahahahahaha also I definitely heard swing low above the the welsh anthems a few times. all in all a very embarrassing evening 😀 sweet dreams… X
It’s a rugby match. All you need is an army band and a goat, not a hen night disco. But embarrassed by it? Uh no, it wasn’t my idea.
Bomber, some fair points, but I would suggest that you work on your delivery. You might be embarrassed when you reread it!
nah, i’m still buzzin from the humblin! poet and I don’t evan know it, couldn’t giff a shizzle hahah 😀 X i’m also dyslesic you hero…
This one of those times I wish I’d made more fun of England when they were battered by all and sundry… Fair points if you’re a one eyed tool I suppose.
Brighty, the fair points were the ridiculous disco, the equally ridiculous standoff in the tunnel, and the fact that Swing low did get heard. How he said it was embarrassing though. If you still wish to stand by your last comment, that is up to you.
No, I apologise for that. Got riled.
No worries – it’s more fun to disagree about rugby!
Don’t give a monkey’s about your spelling, it was the trolling that was annoying.
“Buzzin” and “Humblin” don’t rhyme. Who let the football fan on here? I’m all for wind ups, but they should be a lot more subtle than this.
i think your being a little disingenuous saying englands win was down to increase ‘aggression’, which is quite a vague concept. both teams wanted it the same, england were just a better team on the day.
id argue that in this professional era all teams have the same level of ‘aggression’ or will to win as the next, victory comes from better tactics, skill sets etc
Could not disagree more about this match or sport in general. I really rate a performance that can bring it on the night like England did. Not disingenuous at all, seems like you think its not actually that much of a compliment? It is in my eyes, a huge one.
Can’t quite get my head around the plan A and B comments. What you are suggezting is that if the big men get chopped down (plan A), start giving the ball to the more nimble backs (plan B). Sorry but this is exactly the point that has been made, as Gatland never deviates from plan A – being the big runners trying to knock down doors. What you are suggesting is a plan B. Wales have one of the most talented backlines in world rugby but Gatland will only ever use them in one way. It is a shame. Admittedly Cuthbert and Roberts are primarily Plan A types, but Halfpenny, North, JD and Webb are much more skilful players. If you added Liam Williams and Scott Williams, you could play a totally different game to Warrenball. But Gatland won’t.
The other problem that has been alluded to is that the front five is looking a bit shaky. That will muck up the best laid plans. Not sure how you fix that.
What you’re suggesting is contrary to what this article itself says – that we only ever give the ball to the big men to bosh it up. Halfpenny. Liam Williams. JD2 when he is sharp. These all do, and have, played what you call “Plan B” under Gatland. Warrenball is a lazy cliche.
Brighty, you have an excellent set of backs. I just don’t think Gatland makes best use of them as I have said many times on here before.
Ok, so let’s look at this another way, you would still pick most of your players over the English ones. Can’t remember how you saw it, was it an 11 – 4 split to Wales I think. So that means, either you are wrong and England actually are the better team, England wanted it more, England are better coached, Wales were undercooked or a combination of the four. Any way you look at it, apart from England just being better, Gatland deserves blame.
As I stated earlier, I don’t think Gatland had an alternative game plan for the players to revert to. He was hoping that the rousing stadium would work it’s magic again. If he did why didn’t something happen?
I think Wales and England are closely matched – as a lot of us have been saying for a while. So this leads to games where it’s a few % the difference. Despite talks of “humblings” and some of the hyperbole in the press we lost the game by 5 pts while playing like muppets for most (all?) of the second half. If we can be that close when playing like fools then I think we can do better when we play better.
I think that the team SL was driven to pick was the best team he has picked for a long time. England dragged us into an arm wrestle and they then dominated that – better at doing it than us and good play to drag us into it. I think 9 was off the pace, wings were off form and JD2 was rushed back too early – latter two points are def Gats’s fault.
I just think this idea that we only do Warrenball or we only do Plan A is too simplistic an analysis. I didn’t see England playing Globetrotters rugby either – I saw them win the collisions, get on the front foot and take advantage of that. We tried and failed. When we succeed with it then it is called Warrenball. Our backs pretty much got zero usable ball in that match – good England line speed, good breakdown work and a 9 on our side who was having a mare. I don’t see that there was much there where we could have broken out the Barry John’s. I also don’t buy the idea that players who were losing are incapable of playing some off the cuff stuff if it is on. Simply it wasn’t on. Apart from 1 or 2 runs we just had no ball to play with in the second half cos England won it all. Circling back to how I started – I think we can get better at stopping that happening. I think it’ll have been a tough but good lesson for Samson Lee. I think Rhodri Jones will also help shore up the scrum and Ken Owens is sorely missed for some dynamism when Hibbard is flagging.
Also Gats’s fault – not bringing on Tips when we needed to chase the game. Not bringing Liam Williams on when North was knocked out, regardless of what the med team said. There is plenty to lay at his door but I don’t see this 100% inability to play any way other than one way. I see tweaks needed – evolution, not revolution.
Ok, let’s take these one at a time. Firstly I agree , there isn’t much between the teams. As I said before the game, I had Wales by 7. Doesn’t stop me being ecstatic at the win as an England fan!
Did Wales play like fools or did the England game plan work to perfection? I think the latter.
Was it England’s best team. No. Corbisiero, Launchbury, Morgan and Tuilagi would all have improved the team. Haskell, Youngs and JJ had career days and may or may not be able to repeat the feat, so possibly only half the starting line up, but they were players on form I accept.
The England forward dominated armwrestle. If you’re annoyed about the lazy Warrenball cliche, imagine how the English feel after 40 years of that. England went through a period of experimenting with the kiwi high paced game. Worked occasionally, but was unreliable, but SL has had England playing different types of game. I may be missing something, but Gatland has his strategy with Wales. As stated many times. I think that you have a good team, and I also think that a bit of tweaking to tactics will do wonders. I’m just not sure that Gatland will. We’ll see whst the remainder of the tournament brings.
Disagree on Corbs and Tui (yes, even Tui), agree on the other two when on form but seriously that 2nd row would only get marginally better with Launchbury as they were excellent. Haskell is a concern for you he has had great games before but not with consistency.
Agree that the rest of the comp will tell. Gats had the brickbats about style etc two years ago after a proper walloping at home from Ireland, that season turned out well. It’s a tricky problem – how to not throw the baby out when a change is needed.
Agree it wasn’t just Wales being fools. As I said, England made us play their game plan which is commended. They were better at that plan than we were.
hey brighty
i think on the corbs front england may well have got more scrum penalties. based on his premiership appearances so far. which could easily have led to 6-9 more points.
but just on the points difference with referrence to the state of the match. i know its ifso buts but the reason haskell didnt score was the post despite a good tackle from cuthbert and 99 times put of 100 hask wont run into the post. so for the sake of “state of the games” difference between the two teams. it was probably more like 12 points. and i know halfpenny missed a kick but running into posts stopping a try is a lot rarer thsn missing a kick. so with comparstive performances on another day england were about 12 points ahead.
also this whole crashball crap. i barely saw any on friday. and woulda been a lot more scared if you did. thrre is a play leicester do with mulipola tuilagi and goneca where thry come off the line out crash ball from mulipola, quick ruck, crash from tuilagi, then same from goneva. if wales did that kinda crashball with northroberts and cuthbert itd be a lot more worrying as oppose to 1 in a series of phases
I think it’s a compliment that they managed to execute their game plan and come away with a win. I don’t think that was down to ‘aggression’, temperament yes but I dont think it was aggression which separated the teams on Friday night.
Then we differ in what we saw in that game but I’m not being disingenuous.
Agreed, disingenuous was the wrong word to use.
Watching back, the major problem I saw for Wales was twofold. England seemed to have a tactic of running straight at Warburton, forcing him to make the tackle and Lydiate to try to jackal it. This isn’t as effective as the other way round.
And then JD2. He just wasn’t at the races. I don’t know what was up but he seemed to offer very little. It’s hard to believe that Scott Williams isn’t in better form right now.
For England, more and more it looks like Burrell has the ability to make the right decisions at IC. I like his game, though his execution isn’t fantastic. I can see him and Ford as a good combination going forward.
Agreed with this. I thought Burrell had a good game even if there are areas he can improve. He seems to have an ability to pick intellligent lines and that’s something that is much more difficult to teach
If he can improve his defence and his passing (his off-loading seems good) then we could end up with a pair of centres and a fly-half that complement each other very nicely
As an aside – How sobering is it to see the great Sergre Blanco! “Diabesity” or what? Don’t know if helping out PSA is a good idea for him.
DDD
I think a big difference in England’s game here was the addition of genuine ball carriers to help BV. I’m thinking Haskell, Kruis (Attwood already in) and Burrell. I wonder if we didn’t have those injuries whether Wood, BB and Parling play and we lose the collision/breakdown battle?
Thought Haskell was a genuine point of difference in this game and highlighted our previous lack of dynamism/carrying threat in the back row. Hope he stays fit and on form!!!
I agree that Haskell’s dynamism was a real point of difference for us. So, witht hte reasonable assumption that he will at some point get injured, who would you have when he is?
I am a fan of Wood, he does a huge amount of work etc, but he is not a powerful carrier around the breakdown. He is better carrying the ball in the wider channels. Puts pressure on our 8.
Armitage – in prison (suspended), so out of contention.
Ewers? Good carrier, does he do the breakdown work?
Or do we rely on other carriers in the pack – Atwood, Marler, Hartley/Youngs, Launchbury.
Clark seems to be close. I believe he is a better carrier than Wood.
Kvesic is a strong carrier.
Croft?
Am I correct in thinking that Vunipola has played 6 at Saracens?