Stafford’s article looks at Nyrsko Rugby Club, a newly formed side in a small town in the Czech Republic.
For anyone with an interest in quality sports writing, beautiful photography and content that goes beyond the banal cliches and platitudes of most rugby magazines, Rugby is a must.
From stories of players who have suffered life changing injuries to the science behind scrummaging machines, Rugby is the publication our wonderful sport deserves. Well done to Alex Mead, Simon Campbell and all at talktoeric.comfor putting this out there.
Now go out there and support it. Oh, and here’s the fantastic contents page, where Stafford lines up with the donkeys. And don't worry, we won't let James 'The Brand' Haskell walk around with a selfie stick pregame.
The South Terrace is a new series from The East Terrace editor James Stafford (@jpstafford).
One of the great things about sport is you can never really ever predict what’s coming next. While what’s past is prologue, generally offering a pretty reliable hint of what’s to come, sometimes plot lines don’t pan out according to age old formulas.
A competitor's overwhelming advantage in experience, athletic ability, entourage support or pay packet weight can, from time to time, be undercut by a piece of smart thinking executed to perfection under pressure.
Seemingly insurmountable opponents can very occasionally be levelled by wit, rather than by rapier. And it’s the rarity of the seemingly natural order of things being turned upside down that makes it so appealing to genuine sporting fans.
Few expected Italy to do anything but try gamely when they arrived at Twickenham for round three of the 2017 Six Nations. Predictions consistently seemed to congregate around a fifty point beating for the visitors. Yet for forty minutes one of the strongest rugby teams on the planet was utterly flummoxed when being confronted with a simple, if risky, tactic.
For those that like a bit of thinking with their sport, or something to break the monotony of mainstream tactics, it was fascinating.
Matt Dawson is not a man who welcomes such challenges. In fact, he actively rages against such things.
For him it seems playing within the laws of the game are unacceptable if it doesn’t cook up a game that serves up a cookie cutter template that suits his palate.
Despite reaching the pinnacle of the game and winning a World Cup under Clive Woodward, a coach who wisely looked to exploit any 1% advantage that he could legally take, Dawson is surprisingly closed minded to a team seeking to grab whatever edge it can.
More of the same for me, please
For the man who toured with the 2001 Lions in the innovative role of player columnist, there was no fascination in seeing elite athletes being forced to adapt under pressure to an unexpected narrative. There was nothing to savour in seeing 50/1 underdogs leading at the halfway point away from home against a team they’ve never beaten. Rather, it was a time for anger.
Dawson choose to rant, rather than reflect on the inability of well paid athletes to understand the basic laws of the game. In fact, Dawson seemed to hint at his own lack of understanding of rugby’s ruck laws, at one point bizarrely claiming a disallowed try was due to Italy’s tactics, rather than a basic law infringement from England that actually had nothing to do with Italy’s strategy on the day.
It’s hard to imagine that Matt Dawson, when captain on theinfamous 1998 ‘Tour to Hell’, wouldn’t have taken advantage of whatever legal means possible to compete. Perhaps we are being harsh though. Perhaps, given the choice to reduce a 76-0 loss to Australia to something less horrific, Dawson would have stoically refused his coach’s order to employ a legal strategy to halt the golden wave washing over England, preferring to honourably limit his side’s options.
We’ll never know.
Dawson’s lack of perspective was spectacular last week, going so far as to imply Italy’s coach Conor O’Shea shamed the game and had earned anything but respect for his approach.
That's talk of shame, coming from the man who made this.
Those who do not learn from history
Dawson’s Twitter rant didn’t stop there. He went on to predict utter chaos in the amateur game as a result of Italy’s trangressions on Saturday
Except, there was nothing original about the sins of Sergio Parisse’s men. Amusingly, the above Tweet revealed a surprising lack of knowledge from one of the BBC’s major pundits that this tactic has been employed on several occasions before.
Tweets such as this started flying around during the first half of the game.
The fact that it has been utilised previously without causing the game of rugby football to collapse in on itself only serves to reveal Dawson’s utter lack of perspective on the matter.
Even better, he aggressively claimed that you can’t expect professional players to adapt to this tactic on the fly. Despite, teams having done exactly that in the past.
On Saturday Dawson served only to paint himself as the 21st century equivalent of the narrow minded British pundits and players who raged against early innovations in the international game. Those blinkered establishment types who scoffed at the 1905 New Zealand team that dared to experiment with positional play.
The following extract from the Auckland Star in 1917 (reflecting on the 1905 tour and of captain Dave Gallaher’s deployment in the newly created ‘rover’ position) encapsulates the tradition Dawson seeks to carry forth today.
"The Britishers stood aghast at this style of play. They only saw Gallaher descending like fury on the British halves, bumping them and robbing them, and opening up the lightning passing bout that ended in big scores for the black-garbed stranger team. The critics cried out the loud protest, the crowds roared with indignation and the air of the playing fields rang with thunderous complaints of unfair play...."
It would have been nice of Dawson to use his influential position to shine some light to his audience, many of whom are casual fans, as to how the laws allowed Italy to play this way and why they may have chosen to do so. He didn't have to like it, but he could have viewed it as a brave, and incredibly risky, strategy that was so rare as to be enjoyable purely in its own rights. He could have analysed and dissected.
But we know that Dawson isn't a fan of asking questions.
He could have have even grabbed it as an example of how a tournament that has been around since the 1890s still keeps writing new and original tales. That this unpredictability in sport, the ability of brain to rival brawn, is what makes sport so magnificent. That to be the best in sport you have to react to the unknown as well as you plan for the predictable.
Instead Dawson chose to rant.
Dawson was right to say there was some shameful stuff going on last week in rugby. But it wasn’t coming from Conor O’Shea’s men.
The South Terrace is a new series from The East Terrace editor James Stafford (@jpstafford), taking a less satirical look at the game.
UPDATE: (23/02/17) We contacted the BBC team for comment on this piece and provided a few questions for the broadcast team to try and get insight into the decision making process and reasoning behind the directing of the match broadcast feed. Sadly we were informed they were too busy ahead of the weekend's rugby to get involved on this occasion.
Until around the 1960s there was little doubt watching a rugby match live in the ground was vastly superior to sitting at home on the sofa staring at an overheated, clunky glowing box.
By the 1970s though, the quality of live match coverage and camera work meant that even if television couldn’t replace the experience and emotion of a Championship game in the flesh, you could certainly have little to complain about when it came to seeing what was going on.
In the UK we’ve been fortunate to have the BBC cover what is now the Six Nations for generations. And for the first several decades its live television broadcast came with just a handful of cameras. Most match action came direct from just a couple of viewpoints and the focus was, well, on the ball. But as technology has improved and the number of cameras grown in abundance, it’s all got a little more complex.
The culture seems to have shifted from broadcasting a match to broadcasting an experience. Hi-definition video, ultra slow motion, multiple angles, ref cams, pitch microphones, and crowd/coach/VIP shots have all come together to offer endless permutations of how a game can be beamed into the nation’s bars and living rooms.
All of these innovations are fantastic on their own. The problem is the philosophy behind their employment. Instead of being used to enhance, they are being used to distract, wow and bedazzle. It seems more about immersing the viewer in the game than simply bringing the game to the viewer.
Camera angles that should be utilised wisely and occasionally for replays are being cut to during play with all the fanaticism of a hyperactive Paul Greengrass disciple. Replays that should be short, sharp and to the point are drawn out and often end up overlapping the subsequent set piece.
Go back and watch a BBC Five Nations broadcast in the 1980s. I guarantee you that you will have less live action missed than you do now (although to be fair, the BBC is far better than it was in the first decade of the 21st century when broadcasting a live lineout seem to have all the regularity of a good refereeing performance in the Pro 12).
Below, The South Terrace tackles a few of the most irritating trends in modern rugby broadcasting. We’d also love to get your feedback on what infuriates and delights you in this season’s Six Nations broadcasting (get us on Twitter at @theeastterrace).
The curse of the close up
Today it feels like broadcasters are obsessed with putting viewers ‘in the game’. Which is why, with far too much frequency, we get these shots during play.
Out of context, this is a nice shot. One can see why it appeals to broadcast directors. The problem is, in the live match context it’s distracting. Far too often this shot comes in and actually takes the viewer out of the game. You can’t see where the defence is, how the players are lined up in attack, what options are available to the halfback and so on.
Take the following passage of play. In the fourth minute England break into the Welsh 22 and have the home side on the back foot. Suddenly, Wales’ Dan Biggar forces a turnover. A huge momentum shift.
This is a classic example of when not to go to an extreme close up and shows a lack of appreciation for the game. Viewers want to see how the teams react. Is there a chance for a counter? Do England realign quick enough in defence and prevent a dart from a Welsh halfback? Will Wales look to clear or send a forward on a barge. It’s crucial the camera stays wide here.
Instead, we get this.
It’s about a five or six second shot. Enough to remove any indication to the viewer of what may be about to unfold.
Seconds later this happens again. Twice. England counter from the clearance kick and in the first two rucks we get two single second shots.
Both are such short cuts they do nothing but disrupt the visual narrative. The above clip isn't just quick, it's late. The broadcast team zoom in for the needless close up before having to quickly switch out again as the ball has already moved on
Mistakes happen. But once bitten, twice shy? Not a bit of it. The game is peppered with such short shots which miss the recycling of the ball and disorientate the viewer.
It really is relentless. At first The South Terrace planned to list the number of these ruck close ups that littered the game. We actually got fed up counting. It felt endless.
The opening play had 11 phases, five of them had ruck close ups. The last one (above) being my favourite.
These angles can be fantastic at the right time. But during live play is rarely the time to use them. They are best suited to being pulled out during stoppages to try and shine light on penalty calls or analyse intelligent rucking/counter rucking.
They also can add character. The below is a fantastic shot. Perfect for montages, replays, game commercials. Not so good for game context.
Frustratingly, when the close up camera did seem to offer something worth a replay, we never got it. Watching live, many viewers on Twitter expressed interest in this (very fleeting) shot.
Reckless use of the hands near the eyes? That's very debatable (and the debate has raged online, believe me). But once shown it is never again brought up. So not only is use of this viewpoint generally distracting to viewers, when it potentially captures something of interest it is ignored.
Lining up the wrong replay
Rugby is a game overflowing with stoppages. There are enough breaks, resets, injuries, TMO calls and standing around to fill up with replays. Which is why missing lineouts and restarts is so infuriating.
Here's a Welsh lineout in the seventh minute.
For fans who appreciate good forward play, it's unforgivable. The lineout duel is one of the sport's attractions. Who lines up where? Who marks who? What triggers the jump and throw? Fans want to watch these things.
Lineouts decide the momentum of a game. They decide result results. They decide titles. We shouldn’t have to miss them for moments that are gone.
Then, in contrast to the extreme close ups that plague the rucks, too many lineouts that are shown get broadcast like this:
Something is happening there. I'm damned if I know what though.
Just one more time
The curse of the replay doesn't just impact lineouts either. Kick offs and conversions often fall pray to overzealous fascination with the past.
Here's the Welsh conversion after Liam Williams' try.
Admittedly, it was in front of the sticks. So we can understand, to a degree, the nonchalant concern of catching it live.
It's not like test kickers ever miss them, is it?
The (right) picture tells a thousand words
The BBC has been, and continues to be, a great servant to the game and the vast majority of it’s live match broadcast work is first class.
The problem seems not to be ability, but philosophy. A modern obsession with providing an ‘immersive’ viewing experience actually takes the rugby fan out of the game, rather than propels them into it.
When the ball is in play, give us the wider picture. Leave the finer detail to be uncovered after the dust has settled.
The South Terrace is a new series from The East Terrace editor James Stafford (@jpstafford), taking a less satirical look at the game.
The concept that less is more is not one grasped by an abundance of television broadcasters.
So called ‘dead air’ during match commentary is to be feared as much as World Rugby now fears a tackle that hints it might move above navel height. Why let a great moment speak for itself when you can blurt out all sorts of inane drivel at the moment of drama?
One of the greatest moments in sports commentary history is essentially silence.
Al Michaels’ reaction to one of sport’s greatest upsets - a bunch of US college players beating the greatest hockey team of all time - is, essentially, just silence.
Silence opened with the inspired and immortal phrase: ‘Do you believe in miracles?’, to give credit where due. But it’s silence nonetheless.
Can you imagine a modern rugby commentator letting the images do the talking after a grand slam or world cup win? It’s unlikely.
Most microphone owners no doubt would feel an irresistible urge to release a deluge of pent up hyperbole they’ve been trained to unleash by modern producers - an almost Pavlovian like response to overreacting to almost anything remotely of interest occurring on the sporting field.
We all have commentators we love or loathe. And to be fair it’s a tough gig. Far tougher than it looks. Some fans prefer wisdom and analysis, some actively want bias they can lap up like blinkered fanatical sheep. You can never please everyone. You can, however, constantly annoy a lot of them.
Frustratingly, it really shouldn’t be an issue now. Interactive options are possible which allow for match commentary to be muted and the satisfying roar of the crowd to be pumped out over the television speakers instead. Why not offer fans the option?
I know of one family who endure rugby in total silence on the television, such is the contempt held towards commentators by the man who wields ultimate control over the remote control in the household. It’s amusing, but it’s understandable.
There’s also no need to make the poor man suffer. Rugby with no commentary is one thing. Rugby with no sound at all just feels wrong. Like rock music with the amplifiers switched off, the bassist on holiday and the drummer on sick leave.
Take a moment to review these moments from the opening weekend of the Six Nations sans commentary.
There’s something even more joyful and primal about them than when watching with commentary. They’ve no doubt been removed here due to rights issues, but there’s no valid reason crowd only audio can’t be offered as standard.
For the nerdy of nature, watching without commentary allows them to focus on the technical factors that little bit better. For them, a commentator is like an annoying house mate who won’t stop talking during the game. It’s a needless distraction.
Broadcasters may baulk at this idea and worry that they can’t promote upcoming games if people aren’t being spoken to (or rather at) constantly. But that’s a false fear. Anyone committed enough to watch a game without commentary is going to know when the next match is up and tune in anyway.
I’m not sure I believe in miracles enough to think that is going to happen anytime soon. But I’d like to have some hope we can be trusted to decide what we enjoy most when it comes to our rugby.
The South Terrace is a new series from The East Terrace editor James Stafford (@jpstafford), taking a less satirical look at the game
The decision of the Six Nations Council to abruptly announce the introduction of bonus points to the Six Nations in 2017 has got quite the conversation going in rugby circles.
We’ll leave wisdom of introducing bonus points into a short format tournament that isn’t played on a home and away basis (as well as having an uneven split in the home and away match allocation) for another column on another day.
Change comes slowly to the old Championship
What’s immensely irritating - and hugely distracting to the debate - is the proliferation of ‘retro tables’ that have appeared to look back at what would have happened if previous championships had been played under the new points system.
The BBC were just one of many outlets to draw up a table - reinterpreting the 2015 championship as it would have looked under the new bonus point system. Pundit Arena ran a piece looking at an alternate reality stretching from 2012 under the new rules. Imaging how (hypothetically) it could have saved Stuart Lancaster’s skin and put Joe Schmidt under pressure.
A table that fundamentally disagrees with itself
The thing is, none of this makes any logical sense. Because if bonus points had been introduced back then the games would have been played differently and had different outcomes (isn’t that the very point of bonus points?).
Teams would have aimed for bonus points from the off. Tactics and strategies would have diverged from the ones implemented in reality in 2015. As the championship progressed the balance of points in the table would have had impacted the mentality players took into games and changed the pressure points on teams and coaches. All of which would have led to different match day decisions and actions. And each change would have led to another change. A kind of rugby butterfly effect.
The myth of the missed kick
Going back to an existing set of results and calculating a bonus point scenario shows only a lack of understanding of how tournament rules influence matches (and puts a serious question mark over one’s suitability to debate the whole bonus point system in the first place).
It’s similar to the nonsense too often spouted by pundits (who should know better) when a player misses a series of kicks in an important match. How frequently do we hear experts tells us that if a player had hit those five penalties then his team would have had another fifteen points and won the game?
That too is perverse logic. Because once the first kicked sailed over we would have had a kick-off follow, rather than a drop out 22 or kick to touch from the defending team. Consequently, the rest of the match would not have turned out the same way and the other four missed kicks would not have occurred.
So can we stop with the retro Six Nations tables? It makes as much sense as rugby’s disciplinary system.
Let’s instead look forward the 2016 championship and see how the bonus point system works. Then we can all build hypothetical tables demonstrating what would have happened under the old system...no, wait!
The South Terrace is a new series from The East Terrace editor James Stafford (@jpstafford), taking a less satirical look at the game
In 2001 rugby, traditionally the most conservative of sports, took the giant leap forward to allow the use of television replay technology to help referees determine whether a try had been legitimately scored.
Fifteen years later and barely a half (let alone a game) seems to go by without some kind of controversy or debate about either poor implementation of the TMO by officials or confusion over non use of the TMO by officials.
Completely predictably, we’ve exchanged one set of controversies for another. What used to be human error in real-time, is now human error in repeated slow motion. What used to be the error of one man, is now the error of a technology backed team.
However, the TMO genie is not only out of the bottle, it’s smashed the bottle it came from. It’s never going away.
What’s astonishing is that 15 years after it first began regularly halting our games it is still being used so poorly and so inconsistently. Perhaps the most irritatingly persistent gripe for fans is the frequent odd choice of angles used to make a decision.
At the end of the eighth minute of play we got our second try of the game and the second use of the TMO (we spent 1 minute and 43 seconds awaiting the first decision on Vasil Lobzhanidze's early score).
Tommy Seymour and Lobzhanidze race into the goal area chasing a kick ahead. Watching in real-time is seems Seymour gets there first, but it’s hard to tell if he grounded it as the ball shoots out from under his hand. It’s a fair call to go to TMO from referee Matthew Carley.
But after that the decision making goes downhill.
First replay: Slow-motion, behind the goal (raised)
The first TMO angle is from behind the try line, but above pitch level. It’s a very good angle. The second angle, however, is ideal. It’s not only ground level behind the try line, the incident happens right in front of the cameraman.
Watching it at the time I was pretty much prepared to bet my soul, or at least the soul of an enemy, that a better angle was not going to be available. Any other angle at this point is going to simply hold the game up. But it’s rugby and its TMO time, so we charge ahead regardless.
Second and third replay: Shown only once in slow-motion and requested then at full speed
But this is where it gets odd. Carley asks to see the incident at “full speed”. This is something increasingly common these days. Whilst it makes sense in tackle situations, where a hard tackle can look far worse in slow-motion that in real-time, it makes little sense to me in this kind of incident. You have a bobbling ball, two sets of hands diving at it and the ball shooting off after the supposed touchdown. It’s the exact time you need slow motion.
So while we then get another viewing of the best angle, this time we get it at full speed. It’s as useless as an offload in a Warren Gatland game plan, because, well, it’s at full speed. So we are unable to distinguish anything.
Next follows a pointless replay from the main broadcast camera - which is pitch side on the far touchline. It adds nothing to the debate.
Fourth replay: Slow-motion used
It’s clear the ground level angle (in slow-motion) is the one to use. So after bizarrely asking for the full-speed replay a moment ago, instead of now asking for a repeat of the slow-motion version of the same angle, Carley now asks for “any other angles”. Seemingly hoping somehow he will find a better one to make a call from. From where he expects that to be, I can’t imagine.
After a pause, and just as the officials are about to make a decision, the broadcast director offers up another angle. It’s not the worst angle ever, but it is the third best of the four offered so far. We see it in slow-motion.
Replays five and six: Slow-motion and full speed used
But Carley again wants another useless full speed replay, stating: “The Scottish player gets there first, does he get downward pressure?”
So, as is Carley’s want, he gets a comically useless full speed repeat replay to pass judgement on. It’s utterly inconclusive. And from that utterly inconclusive view, after a delay of two minutes and 41 seconds, he awards the try.
Perhaps, aware he has spent four minutes and 24 seconds with the TMO in the opening eight minutes of game time (mainly looking at the wrong replays at the wrong speed), he just wanted to get on with it and put fans out of their misery.
"Ah, let's just get it over with."
But it made no logical sense to ignore the second replay used (ground level, yards from the incident) and to not ask to see it again in slow-motion. It makes a mockery of the whole procedure and is a poor reflection of how little TMO decision making has evolved since 2001.
And worst of all, for what it’s worth, it really didn’t look much like a try.
Time spent on TMO for try decision: two minutes 41 seconds
First replay: Slow-motion, behind the goal (raised)
Second replay: Slow-motion, behind the goal (ground level)
Third replay: Full-speed, behind the goal (ground level)
Fourth replay: Slow-motion, main broadcast camera (near touchline)
The South Terrace is a new series from The East Terrace editor James Stafford (@jpstafford), taking a less satirical look at the game
No sports fan ever bemoaned a lack of access to biased sporting opinion.
If a fan doesn’t have enough of their own there’s an eternal abundance of it on tap all around them - usually in the seat beside them at the bar or stadium.
For fans who cannot get enough of thoughts dripping wet in the colour of their own team they need only visit their chosen echo chamber of bias on social media.
#IREvNZL Scoreboard should read Ireland 9 V NZL 7, Ireland robbed by two really dodgy decisions by TMO and ref.!
But one place it would be nice to not have to suffer a proliferation of opinions served up with blinkers is during a live broadcast commentary.
Sky Sports paired Mark Robson and Alan Quinlan for Ireland against New Zealand on the weekend. Bias on television commentary is par for the course now, but this duo form a particularly potent partnership. Last Saturday they delivered all the neutrality and balance of a Russia Today journalist working a story on Putin’s activities in the Crimea.
For non-partisans looking forward to an epic test on the weekend, or fans of Ireland and New Zealand looking for genuine insight and analysis, it was a depressing soundtrack to endure.
A global problem
And before a deluge of complaints stream in stating that other nations have equally biased commentators, I agree fully. I’ve had this topic in mind for a while. Saturday’s match was simply a game I was really looking forward to and was covered in a way frustrating enough to make me finally reach for the keyboard.
Robson made one statement that deserves to go down in rugby folklore as either one of the most one-eyed comments ever made or one of the most naive. Either way it was dreadful.
Robson asked Quinlan if the All Blacks went on to the field actively looking to push the laws of the game to the limit and/or beyond. The answer is simple. Of course they do.
That’s what any rugby team that wins and wins consistently does. You send a team out to play Test rugby and ask them to act like Corinthian gentlemen - strictly adhering to the laws of the game as written in the World Rugby lawbook - and you send a team out committed to defeat.
Robson is a professional pundit of many years and it’s hard to fathom such naive questioning. It’s like he never commentated on, I don’t know, Munster. How can anyone who watched the Munster side that played such a starring role in the first decade of European Cup rugby be surprised at teams playing beyond the laws in an organised fashion?
That famously effective kinetic ball of Limerick rugby cynicism that made four finals and won two European Cups between 2000-2008 was an almost perfect template for winning ugly; expertly occupying the space between the complex paragraphs and subsections that make up the game’s lawbook.
And that’s not to criticise. Munster played to win and got away with it. They deserved their glory as much as any other rugby team that wins consistently does.
It was delightful (and refreshingly honest) to hear Munster legend Paul O’Connell call an All Blacks’ infringement ‘brilliant’ during the halftime pitchside analysis. It was the remark of a man who wasn’t going to piously preach against something he’s done countless times himself and knows that modern day Ireland would do (or should do if they want to win) without hesitation.
If Robson wishes to ask such questions of premeditation, that’s fine. But he needs to also address the dubious way Ireland frequently attack the breakdown area. The way they play the ball on the floor.
If he wants to focus on the high tackles from New Zealand (and there were plenty), he needs to at least counterbalance that by mentioning Johnny Sexton’s one that allowed him to come between ball and ground briefly during Beauden Barrett’s try. He had five immediate chances to do so via instant replay.
Instead we only got praise from both Robson and Quinlan for the illegal tackle.
Sexton’s tackle technique was picked up widely on social media and in online forums by watching supporters. So why was it not even a reference point for the pros on the microphone? Ireland’s RTE commentary team equally ignored the issue.
The South Terrace is a new series from The East Terrace editor James Stafford (@jpstafford). Taking a more serious, less satirical, look at the game
One of the biggest points of debate concerning modern rugby tactics is that of when to take the easy three points from a penalty and when to gamble on the reward of seven by spurning that kick at goal.
It’s a fine line between glory and ignominy. Never was that clearer than in the space of a few days during the 2015 World Cup. Japan’s refusal to settle for a draw in the dying moments against the Goliath that was South Africa earned them a place among rugby’s immortals.
Chris Robshaw’s similar choice at home to Wales a few days later, which effectively ended the host nation’s campaign, will haunt every article, biography and book on rugby ever written that summarises the man’s career.
In Cardiff this weekend, a spluttering and directionless Wales looked to get back on track from a run of dispiriting defeats by notching up a rare autumn win. Facing Argentina and leading 6-3 after 29 minutes, Wales entered their opponent’s 22 and gained a very kickable penalty.
Even the most casual fan following Wales in the Warren Gatland era will feel a sense of dread when Wales turn down the chance for either Leigh Halfpenny or Dan Biggar (two of rugby’s finest kickers) to have a pop at goal and opt instead for a scrum or lineout. It seems to rarely end well.
Neither Warren Gatland nor Robin McBryde have seemed able to shape a dominate Welsh set piece in the past eight years. Even when Wales may have won a significant amount of their set pieces in big games, it seems that number drops off dramatically in attacking positions. Meaning the choice to not kick the points is a particular gamble for Wales.
Yesterday, with Rob Howley at the helm (as Gatland once again, with full WRU approval, bizarrely takes a year off from his main job of building the Welsh team) Wales demonstrated their inability to turn the screw on tottering opponents.
For just over ten minutes at the end of the first half, Wales never left the Argentinian 22. In fact, for most of it they were within ten metres of the line. The end result? Zero points.
Breaking down that period is a fascinating look not just at Wales’ shortcomings in these critical game moments, but also just how much time is wasted on setting scrums in modern rugby football.
The frustration for Welsh fans is that despite the core coaching team having been in place since 2008, Wales’ ability to produce in pressure situations seems to be regressing, not improving.
Any hope of a shake up to address concerns of a Welsh flatlining in recent years were dashed when Warren Gatland reappointed the same backroom staff again after the 2015 World Cup. Gatland himself, thanks to possible self-interest from former WRU Group Chief Executive Roger Lewis, was given a six year contract that seemingly had no performance criteria built in.
Gatland was also allowed again to take time off to coach the Lions, despite this realistically only hampering Welsh development, rather than assisting it (remember the Henry Rule?). Frustratingly, satisfied with bursts of glory in a northern hemisphere tournament that’s a shadow of what it should be, far too many key media figures in Wales and large segments of supporters seem content with this state of affairs. The odd sweet fruit seems to offset any batches of bad apples.
Despite some Six Nations success, Wales’ record against major southern hemisphere teams stands at 32 losses in 34 games in the Gatland era. Scotland’s record stacks up better.
A significant portion of those results have been relatively narrow defeats and the inability to hammer home a position of advantage lies at the core of several of them.
Against a very disappointing Puma side this weekend, Wales provided a great example of the lack of teeth the Gatland dragon has.
Here it is in all it’s glory.
Stats
Length of game time Wales remained in opponent’s 22 at end of the first- half: 10 minutes and 38 seconds
Points scored: 0
Penalties against Argentina: 5
Penalties against Wales: 1
Kicks at goal: 0
Times Wales opted for lineout from penalty: 3
Times Wales opted for scrum from penalty: 2
Scrums awarded for Argentina knock-ons: 2
Total scrums: 4
Driving mauls from lineouts: 3
Ball taking into contact by Wales: 9
Yellow cards: 1 (Argentina)
Timeline:
29:22: Wales enter the Pumas’ 22 after a break from Scott Williams who feeds to George North. North is tackled and from the subsequent phase Argentina infringe.
29:39: Penalty to Wales (offside by Nicolas Sanchez). Biggar kicks to the right-hand corner
30:53: Ken Owens hits Luke Charteris and Wales attempt a driving maul. Argentina penalised for early drive, but advantage played. A second penalty advantage is played for a defender entering the maul from the side. Using the free play, Biggar cross kicks to the left wing but nothing comes off it. Play brought back for the penalty and Pumas warned by the referee about potential binning..
31:30: Biggar kicks to the right-hand corner. Alan Wyn Jones takes it this time and another driving maul formed. Argentina cope with it, Wales told to use it and it eventually collapses. Wales play it and go into contact six times before being turned over by Puma captain Agustin Creevy. However, in the excitement to exploit an unprepared Welsh defence, Santiago Cordero knocks on and Wales get a scrum.
33:34: Wales have a scrum about 13 metres in from the left touchline. Collapses.
34:20: Scrum goes down again before put in and Wales get a penalty for loosehead Lucas Noguera “pulling out of the contest”
34:43: Biggar kicks to the left-hand corner for a lineout. Owens hits Sam Warburton and Wales set the driving maul. It’s messy, gets stopped, then falls to the floor. The ball pops out and in his excitement to gather, scrum-half Martin Landajo knocks on. Letting Wales off again.
35:58: During treatment for an injury, referee Angus Gardner consults with his line judge. Gardner then tells the Welsh pack: “Just make sure on your lineout they’ve got access to the ball carrier and no one is coming around the front.” Meanwhile Argentina replace Joaquin Tuculet with Jeronimo de la Feunte
36:41: Players bind for the scrum. Wales put a good drive on and get a penalty advantage as the Pumas disintegrate. Advantage is played and Liam Williams almost goes over in the corner but is denied by just hitting touch with his foot before grounding. Wales get a penalty and opt for the scrum.
38:00: Teams engage for the scrum. Again it collapses, but the referee plays advantage to Wales and Moriarty and then Warburton goes into contact, Warburton is stripped in the tackle and the referee brings it back for the penalty.
38:33:Tight-head prop Ramrio Herrara is sin-binned for the latest scrum infringement by the Pumas. Wales opt for the scrum, forcing a change by Argentina as Enrique Pieretto comes on for flanker Javier Ortega Desio due to the yellow. Argentina’s wing Matias Moroni goes into the backrow.
39:20: Teams engage at the scrum.
39:31: Huge shove from Argentina and Gethin Jenkins and Ken Owen pop up and the referee penalises Wales.
