Would have been nice to see 50 points up, but I’d still rather the result we had with no more injuries to key players, which playing at 100% for 80 mins increases that very risk. I don’t know if reducing the intensity was a deliberate decision, if it was ,I for one wouldn’t disagree with it. Not with 3 games left to play, especially after just one weeks rest from the incredible physicality of the Ireland clash. More likely though I think it was so obvious the game was over. 30 points in the first half, 14 in the second, and France pointless for 45 mins.
I think if anything, Wales remind me of England in last years championship; on a winning roll, and winning games….just.
I think it was inevitable that points were left on the pitch. It’s been a while since the team has been in possession of such dominance and options. International rugby is normally a lot more frugal.
Wales is going to be another big game, the second “game of the tournament”. And if we get by the that and Italy…..perhaps there’ll be a third game of the tournament against the old enemy. I do hope so.
]]>