What do you think of the difference in the fitness levels shown by Wales vs England last weekend

by maestegmafia Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:37 pm

What do you think of the difference in the fitness levels shown by Wales vs England last weekend, it has been in the press a few times this week that Wales are now confident that they are in a better physical condition than England.

All well and good, they came back in the match and almost won it, but they still lost.

The Welsh camps synopsis of the game seems to be centred around displaying better fitness and stupidly conceding what they thought were two soft tries. Meaning more defensive work this week and a concentration on power in the set piece, where England also had the upper hand.

Any thoughts?

by Shifty Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:52 pm

Well it's the off season and as the coaches said, England have been doing rugby skills, Wales have been doing fitness, so in theory Wales should of been fitter.

by lostinwales Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:05 pm

As they say its all about peaking for the WC - not a month before hand so yes Wales were fitter on the day but it may not translate to the WC or even this weekend. I'd also be wary of the 'We would have won if...' discussion because its always overdone when it comes to many sides but Wales in particular.

by majesticimperialman Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:18 pm

I thought both teams was a bit rusty to be honest, Wales looked a bit lost in the first half but in the second half England did seem to be tiring towards the end of the game, but Wales did look that little bit fitter.

But it is no good if you are the fitter team if you dont win the game.

Meening a game is not won on fitness alone.

by Guest Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:08 pm

Both sides looked very rusty and playing second strings (especially England) with untried combinations. Lots of mistakes by both sides.

I was disappointed that England didn't push on and seal the game when a fair bit ahead but I don't think fitness levels were any different between the two sides. Obviously Wales will talk this up as they finished a bit stronger but I think a lot of that was down to the lottery of umpteen substitutions in the last quarter.

by flyhalffactory Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:42 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:Both sides looked very rusty and playing second strings (especially England) with untried combinations. Lots of mistakes by both sides.

I was disappointed that England didn't push on and seal the game when a fair bit ahead but I don't think fitness levels were any different between the two sides. Obviously Wales will talk this up as they finished a bit stronger but I think a lot of that was down to the lottery of umpteen substitutions in the last quarter.

Funny that when I said Wilkinson was the form 10 and hence 1st choice (most respected rugby posters i.e. the ones that actually watch more than their just own sides agreed with this rationale) alot of English posters on here where saying that Flood was the first choice blah blah blah, yes great when a plan comes together. And even more hilarious is MJs face of exasperation when the interviewer tried to suggest that it was a 2nd string side .......... stating that he could have put two 15s out that would be as strong.

Lets see not on Saturday but come the important WC games who the "first strings" are for England

by Guest Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:51 pm

woah, flyhalffactory!

Just an opinion, old chum. What's all this "most respected rugby posters" lark anyway? Flood has been first choice for quite a while and, I think, still is. This might be changing though.

We don't really know what "first strings" are at the moment. That's what these games are all about. Often the best players and combinations are found by accident. That's sport!

by Turkster Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:04 pm

lostinwales wrote: I'd also be wary of the 'We would have won if...' discussion because its always overdone when it comes to many sides but Wales in particular.

could you show us where he used that? Headscratch

by maestegmafia Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:22 pm

I thought that the improved fitness levels as well as the substitutes made Wales look promising for what lies ahead.

As mentioned above, both sides showed signs of rustiness, but it was a very physical game, some outstanding individual tackles by England and amazing last minute defence.

But I thought the most important thing that came with higher fitness was an encouraging self confidence and patience that has been missing from our squad for a very long time.

by tomathy Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:59 pm

flyhalffactory wrote:
Funny that when I said Wilkinson was the form 10 and hence 1st choice (most respected rugby posters i.e. the ones that actually watch more than their just own sides agreed with this rationale) alot of English posters on here where saying that Flood was the first choice blah blah blah, yes great when a plan comes together. And even more hilarious is MJs face of exasperation when the interviewer tried to suggest that it was a 2nd string side .......... stating that he could have put two 15s out that would be as strong.

Lets see not on Saturday but come the important WC games who the "first strings" are for England

Well only 3 or 4 (depending on whether you count Corbisiero) of the six nations winning team started. We also had croft and moody back. Meanwhile about 12 of the Wales team that started on Saturday played most of the six nations (the two props just because of injury, but still)

Johnson isn't going to come out and say "some of these guys are second choice" at this stage of the selection process, but compared to our six nations it largely was.

by Geordie Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:21 pm

Gotta agree on his performances in France....i would put Johnny as my first choice 10 for England. He has been amazing...and played alot of running rugby.

Im not sure that we did play ALOT of second string players....
Tindall has been slated for sometime now about his lack of pace and skills as a centre. Tuilagi could very well make that his own position now (though im gutted George Lowe doesnt get any recognition)
Who else?
Armitage...i agree is back up...but needs the gametime to prove his form.
Flutey would be ist choice if he stayed fit and on form.
Moody is captain and i wouldnt have him anywhere near the team over Wood!
With regards to fitness yes wales lasted better...but prob not hard with big Simon Shaw Very Happy

in there are what 38, 39? even though he played well.

Lets be honest guys...it was a pretty poor game played by a lot of rusty players coming back from time off.....

Next game will be a little bit better as they wont be so rusty.

by maestegmafia Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:22 pm

tomathy wrote:
flyhalffactory wrote:
Funny that when I said Wilkinson was the form 10 and hence 1st choice (most respected rugby posters i.e. the ones that actually watch more than their just own sides agreed with this rationale) alot of English posters on here where saying that Flood was the first choice blah blah blah, yes great when a plan comes together. And even more hilarious is MJs face of exasperation when the interviewer tried to suggest that it was a 2nd string side .......... stating that he could have put two 15s out that would be as strong.

Lets see not on Saturday but come the important WC games who the "first strings" are for England

Well only 3 or 4 (depending on whether you count Corbisiero) of the six nations winning team started. We also had croft and moody back. Meanwhile about 12 of the Wales team that started on Saturday played most of the six nations (the two props just because of injury, but still)

Johnson isn't going to come out and say "some of these guys are second choice" at this stage of the selection process, but compared to our six nations it largely was.

i think we have heard this argument on plenty of other threads, maybe it should stay there. This thread is on the Fitness of the Welsh team and its impact.

Any chance we can stay on that topic...?

by tomathy Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:30 pm

Of course. Was just responding to another comment. As a side point - I'm not really sure it's much of a debate. The numbers I've given are either true or not. If corrected I will be happy to concede.

Anyway... If england are still behind fitness-wise come world cup time then I won't be happy. For the moment I hope it's just down to different priorities. Wales also had a stronger bench than us, so I'm not sure it's just a fitness thing. In general I just think we were outplayed for the last period of the match. How much of that was down to fitness would be impossible to say wothout some detailed numbers. Pretty much half of our team were replacements by that point and wouldn't have been run off their feet.

by lostinwales Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:43 pm

Turkster wrote:
lostinwales wrote: I'd also be wary of the 'We would have won if...' discussion because its always overdone when it comes to many sides but Wales in particular.

could you show us where he used that?

Well here in reference to the way Wales felt that they had let in 2 soft tries, as if all of their hard work had been undone in a couple of moments. In this case you could argue that - but then the nature of the game is that if Phillips had somehow been in position and managed to get between Hskell and the try line the chances are that there would have been other scores. In general its the way in which the conversation here often starts off with the reality - i.e. 'we lost' to building up to focusing on individual 'dumb' moments and excuses (i.e. the ref/crowd/rustiness etc) You can sum it up with the old saying about not being able to beat Wales - you can only score more points than them.

The biggest problem is that this sort of attitude seems to be present in the team and not just the supporters and seems to lead to an inability to learn from mistakes. The times when Wales seem to do best is when somehow the complacency gets shaken out of them and they actually start working and playing rugby instead of expecting to win then finding dumb excuses for failure.

by Cymroglan Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:52 pm

Lostinwales I completely agree with you but you will get nonsense like that from both set of fans England v Wales 2008 being just one example of fans making excuses.

by flyhalffactory Tue Aug 09, 2011 11:49 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:woah, flyhalffactory!

Just an opinion, old chum. What's all this "most respected rugby posters" lark anyway? Flood has been first choice for quite a while and, I think, still is. This might be changing though.

We don't really know what "first strings" are at the moment. That's what these games are all about. Often the best players and combinations are found by accident. That's sport!

Woah there, Safe!!

Agree you don't know who your 1st strings are so ........

.......................................................................... Don't come with your "largely 2nd string" m'larky and then have a strop on if we say otherwise , anybody in the know nudge nudge wink wink "respect brother"............. would say that Flood since the 6Ns has not been on form whilst Wilko played very very well for Toulon in the last third of the season, hence not many who watched both players would say that Flood is your NO:1 choice even before last Saturdays performance, thats goes for quite a few players, as your coach said with a smile there are 5 weeks before the WC starts lets see who knows who will start. I am sure there will be quite a few changes in the English set up on the weekend and dependant on the performance (and result). The "1st String" will be out against Ireland as a result of the two Welsh matches

Agree 100% with your last comments tho

Just an observation old fruit

by maestegmafia Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:07 am

hey not here to hear excuses...! Stick to the topic guys...!

by nganboy Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:23 am

Now I didn't see the game but how about...
The difference in fitness levels didn't make enough difference as Wales lost"

by BigTrevsbigmac Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:51 am

I think it's very difficult to conclude that one team is fitter than the other because of all the subs brought on. You could only really compare if all 15 on each side stayed on for the whole game & of course this doesn't happen.
Warburton was naturally looking for the positives after a loss...

England fell away because of turnovers & penalties conceded & therefore couldn't maintain possession. This could be interpreted in different ways ie. Welsh replacements were more effective etc etc.
I don't think Wales were that much fitter however, it may make them feel better to say it.
,

by Breadvan Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:05 am

I don't think Wales were fitter. Wales used the subs better and came back well in the last 20 mins. The team can be fit as a butchers dog for 80 mins but when you have Williams and Roberts colliding into each other, then skills and gameplans must take precedence over fitness levels.

by cabbagesandbrussels Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:47 am

all good points raised, but I get the distinct impression that Wales were actually pleased with their performance on Saturday - a belief further enhanced after reading the article on Gavin Henson on the BBC website...I quote:

"Physically and mentally I feel great. I really do. I'd love to play against England, especially after seeing how well the boys did at the weekend".

"how well the boys did at the weekend". They lost a rugby match!!!
Yes they played a lot better in the last 30 minutes and could have nicked it, but they didnt!

Very odd.

Where was the Welsh superior fitness during the previous 50 minutes???

by Islingtonv2 Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:56 am

To me its drawing the incorrect conclusion that Wales were fitter because they finished the game stronger. Rather the whole game was never dominated by either team though England did have the better of the first half so Wales raising their game and England dropping off due to poorly organised defence (note that was present in the first half as well) and the multiple substitutions which always affect the intensity and flow of the game were probably a much greater impact than fitness. I saw no discernable different in commitment to reaching the breakdown to suggest Englands fitness was flagging in the last 30.

If Wales can push on from that second half performance we are in trouble this weekend, especially given we'll have a completely different run on XV so will have the same rustyness (sp?) issues that Wales won't have.

by maestegmafia Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:24 pm

Having watched Wales Live many times before, I thought they looked fitter than usual. They also looked fitter than England who's players were really struggling after 60 minutes. Many even earlier.

by Cymroglan Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:41 pm

I was at the game and I was sat in the west stand upper tier and from that height you get to see the bigger picture.
It did become obvious that a number of the English players were struggling to keep up with the pace even the English fans sat next to me commented on this.
During the later stages of the second half a lot of players were going down with short term injuries or fiddling about with their laces it appeared to me that it was just a excuse to get their breath back.

by maestegmafia Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:56 pm

Cymroglan wrote:I was at the game and I was sat in the west stand upper tier and from that height you get to see the bigger picture.
It did become obvious that a number of the English players were struggling to keep up with the pace even the English fans sat next to me commented on this.
During the later stages of the second half a lot of players were going down with short term injuries or fiddling about with their laces it appeared to me that it was just a excuse to get their breath back.

I was just north of the Half way line in the West Stand.

I thought exactly the same and noticed that many journalists had commented the same.

My initial point though was more to discuss the benefits of a fit squad rather than who's fitter.

As I mentioned above I thought that the higher fitness levels, than previous, really improved the confidence of the Welsh players and also their patience in phase play. Something I think they lacked previously.

by Guest Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:52 pm

So, if Wales were fitter then England were just better. Ok. Agreed.

Interesting that Wales seem very pleased with their performance and England so-so. I guess it's different levels of expectation.

Still, looking forward to the next game. If it's not cancelled.

by InjuredYetAgain Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:12 pm

Did Wales not go to the same training camp in Poland that Scotland went to 4 years ago? I remember seeing the Scottish team in the warm-up games then and they were chuffing enormous and aerobically, very fit. (Unfortuantely, though, no amount of training in cryogenic chambers taught Nikki Walker how to catch a ball.)
The secret for Wales is to maintain that level of fitness. If you think about yourself, getting fit can be painful and take ages but then think how quickly you can lose it if you don't train with the same intensity.

by Cymroglan Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:20 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:So, if Wales were fitter then England were just better. Ok. Agreed.

Interesting that Wales seem very pleased with their performance and England so-so. I guess it's different levels of expectation.

Still, looking forward to the next game. If it's not cancelled.

I don't think anybody has said they were happy with the result or the performance even though we did score three tries.
What the author of the article asked was what our thoughts were on the fitness level of both teams.
I don't know if you were at the match or not but from the stands it did appear that Wales were the fitter side on the day and that would probably explain why Wales were on the front foot for a large proportion of the last quarter of the match.
Would I agree with you that England were a better side that one would be debatable but what did make you look like a better side was the fantastic boot of Jonny Wilkinson OBE he deservedly got the man of the match award and in my opinion he was the man who won the match for you.

by RubyGuby Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:53 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:So, if Wales were fitter then England were just better. Ok. Agreed.

Interesting that Wales seem very pleased with their performance and England so-so. I guess it's different levels of expectation.

Still, looking forward to the next game. If it's not cancelled.

Or maybe they are coming from different baselines following the 6 nations as opposed to having different expectations - England won the 6 nations in spite of a mauling to Ireland ;Wales have flattered and not deceived anyone for 2 years . Saturday produced a pattern in their play that has not been there since 2008 and produced 3 trys; something we haven't found easy of late. In spite of a 2nd choice front row, a debutant in the backrow and at outside half the performace was enouraging.
Different expectations; sometimes you guys just crack me up - what do you think Wales are expecting???? laughing

by Guest Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:56 pm

I really think it was the mish-mash of countless substitutions at the end (that often happens in warm-up/non-competitive games) that was slightly better handled by Wales. Hence, they came back into the game a bit and made the scoreline more respectable.

Not fitness, in my opinion. I do think this is getting built up a bit by Wales after their training in Poland. Got to look as if you're getting value for money!

I agree with you that Jonny played well and was important in steering England to victory again.

by Guest Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:58 pm

Keep on topic, Ruby. Remember, this is about fitness levels.

I strayed off target once but am now back on!

by RubyGuby Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:06 pm

Well with superior fitness levels and a stronger team on Saturday the welsh team should be looking forward to it. Nice refreshing change with the likes of Warburton leading by example and 19 and 20 year olds in the backs and forwards. In addition to fitness the welsh players looked as if they were enjoying their rugby; particularly in the last 30 when they seemed to settle down. That will inevitably feed into your fitness and performace level.

by Guest Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:07 pm

Much better Smile

by maestegmafia Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:12 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:Keep on topic, Ruby. Remember, this is about fitness levels.

I strayed off target once but am now back on!

If you could take an impartial view for a second, on a topic based on the discussion of the Welsh team, as this is, do you think Wales looked a better team against England last weekend than in Cardiff in February?

by majesticimperialman Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:32 am

maestegmafia wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Keep on topic, Ruby. Remember, this is about fitness levels.

I strayed off target once but am now back on!

If you could take an impartial view for a second, on a topic based on the discussion of the Welsh team, as this is, do you think Wales looked a better team against England last weekend than in Cardiff in February?

by nottins Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:18 am

If you think Wales were fitter then that's fine, but it's impossible to tell with all the substitutions that were made. You carry on believing it if you want. It doesn't matter if you have "superior fitness" you still actually have to score more points than the opposition to win the game. I can imagine the outcry from yourself if England had lost but Martin Johnson had said, "Ah, but we finished the game the fitter side (and so have the moral victory)"

by nottins Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:21 am

maestegmafia wrote:If you could take an impartial view for a second, on a topic based on the discussion of the Welsh team, as this is, do you think Wales looked a better team against England last weekend than in Cardiff in February?

Please stay on topic, to quote yourself:

This thread is on the fitness of the Welsh team and its impact.

Any chance we can stay on that topic...?

by Shifty Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:37 am

If Wales had just done a 2 week fitness camp, of course they should of been fitter!
It is still the off season so players would be rusty and unfit during this period.

by maestegmafia Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:39 am

AlynDavies wrote:If Wales had just done a 2 week fitness camp, of course they should of been fitter!
It is still the off season so players would be rusty and unfit during this period.

AD

Yes well pointed out, but I was wondering what you had noticed in the results positive or negative from that fitness work.

I thought it was very positive, improved confidence, patience etc as I have said above.

What did you notice???

by Shifty Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:45 am

maestegmafia wrote:Yes well pointed out, but I was wondering what you had noticed in the results positive or negative from that fitness work.

I thought it was very positive, improved confidence, patience etc as I have said above.

What did you notice???

I thought Wales looked very fit, and I'm hopeful they can maintain those levels for the World Cup, however England, Argentina, South Africa aren't really important. What's important is, Fiji and Samoa and Wales looked quite lightweight and weak compared to England, something we haven't looked like for 5 years. Wales need bulk and strength for Fiji and Samoa not speed and fitness. that last thing Wales need is to be bullied out of the Islander games.

by Guest Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:46 am

maestegmafia wrote:do you think Wales looked a better team against England last weekend than in Cardiff in February?

Not really, no. It was a strange match last weekend where I didn't feel that much tension. England got on top and got a fair bit ahead before a whole raft of substitutions broke up the game and Wales started to get into the game a bit more.

In both the game in Feb and last weekend I thought England should have won by more, but I was pleased that they were fairly clinical when they got the chances.

As I said before I think the fitness issue has been bigged up by Wales following all the talk of 'improving fitness' in Poland. It wasn't especially noticable in the game as far as I saw. Both sides looked rusty and out of sorts at times and Wales still haven't solved their problem of only playing for a short period. One of the reasons why they tend to finish matches looking better is that they don't put enough into the earlier stages - which is often when the match is won or lost. Whether this is coaching or just player ineptitude I don't know. Probably both. There's no point conserving your energy while shipping 15 points and then trying to play catch-up.

by flyhalffactory Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:44 am

SafeAs

Can see where you are coming from with regards to lack of tension, although I can't agree with Wales playing in patches, or with England been that much on top (perhaps for a 15 min spell in the first half) at any one time.

They seemed to be up with England (8-7 after 26 mins, and only 13-7 at halftime) I think if it had been for a more experienced head at 10 during some crucial stages i.e. straight after the North try, Wales should have consolidated that by playing some %age rugby, and also taken the potential 3 pts on offer instead of going for the line on occasions (Warburton twice), contrast that with Wilko dropping two goals (6 pts) at crucial times when there was an option to run.

The crucial points in the match were
44 min - Tuilagi's soft try
48 min - Stoddarts sickening injury
that threw Wales as Stoddart had been having a very good game both in defence and attack, and meant that Priestland was put back in the FB and young Scott Williams was thrown into the role of Flyhalf so expectedly............ massive blow to Wales mindset I would say, and would have put any team out of synch TBH I thought they did remarkably considering

61 min - Wilkos drop goal puts them 11 pts ahead

Taking all that into account I think Wales fitness levels were deffo better than England, they were certainly off the pace in the last 10 mins of the game, thats got to be a positive going into next weekend

by RubyGuby Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:21 pm

Aren't those players coming off the bench supposed to inject some pace into the game as opposed to slow it down - Looks like people are just appraising what they saw to suit their own views. Not uncommon or objective but understandable I suppose. idea

by Guest Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:26 pm

RubyGuby wrote:Aren't those players coming off the bench supposed to inject some pace into the game as opposed to slow it down

It depends on what state the game is in and what your tactics are. Sometimes players are brought in to slow the game down and play out the remaining time. That's why older, more experienced players are often on the bench to seal a win.

by RubyGuby Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:29 pm

Yeah - lets slow down the RWC warm up game so no one will think we are serious contenders - Looks like people are just appraising what they saw to suit their own views. Not uncommon or objective but understandable I suppose. thumbsup

by Guest Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:37 pm

Ruby, I think you're being a bit naive if you don't think that sides close out wins in warm up matches, or any matches come to that.

Oh, and yes we all view things in our own way. I doubt some of us will ever agree!

by maestegmafia Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:09 am

The difference as I saw it at Twickenham, between the two sides was less than Two Dropped Goals. Effectively, the difference was an experienced Flyhalf against someone starting his first International, who only got the call ten minutes before the game started.

If Priestland had of "kept the score board ticking over" to coin the phrase pinned on the metaphorical donkey, then I think Wales would have won. As they didnt England did.

Very little between these teams, will be interesting to see the out come tomorrow.

by nottins Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:15 am

maestegmafia wrote:The difference as I saw it at Twickenham, between the two sides was less than Two Dropped Goals. Effectively, the difference was an experienced Flyhalf against someone starting his first International, who only got the call ten minutes before the game started.

If Priestland had of "kept the score board ticking over" to coin the phrase pinned on the metaphorical donkey, then I think Wales would have won. As they didnt England did.

Very little between these teams, will be interesting to see the out come tomorrow.

This thread is on the fitness of the Welsh team and its impact.

Any chance we can stay on that topic...?

by Guest Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:29 am

maestegmafia wrote:If Priestland had of "kept the score board ticking over" to coin the phrase pinned on the metaphorical donkey

That's a very bizarre thing.

maesteg, there is a preview button to read your posts first! Laugh

by RubyGuby Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:39 pm

I think we looked fitter again in the last 20 Milk - Watcha think? thumbsup

by Sponsored content