Peter Jackson/The Rugby Paper

[Lizard]

I'm not sure of the stature of Peter Jackson or The Rugby Paper, but he's touting the first test in NZ as Wales' best chance to beat the All Blacks since 1953.

I agree that if the All Blacks' new combinations don't click immediately, and Wales plays at their full potential for 80+, then of course an upset is a possibility but is it really the best opportunity since '53?

For a start, it's being played in New Zealand and home advantage definitely counts here. Not only is it a home game, but it's at Eden Park where no visiting team has triumphed since 1994, which will be before living memory for some of the players on the field, I expect. The All Blacks have never lost a home test match under Steve Hansen. Previous coach Graham Henry's side only lost 3 at home (out of 51), mot recently to the Springboks in 2009.

Surely Wales would have been better placed to win at least a few of the 16 matches played at home (including one at Wembley) against NZ since 1953? 1978, for instance, when NZ squeaked home by 1 point against the Grand Slam winners, or 2004 when a team that won only half its 3N matches got out of jail by the same margin? Other Welsh grand slammers have taken on the All Blacks including in 2012, 2008, 2005

http://www.allblacks.com/News/28956/wal ... -willliams

When do you think Wales best chance to beat NZ again has been?* Or is this tour it?

*For ease of reference:
Tests in NZ: 1969 x2, 1988 x2, 2003, 2010 x2
In Wales: 1963, 1967, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1989, 1997 (Wembley), 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014
Neutral: 1987 (Ballymore), 1995 (Ellis Park), 2003 (Stadium Australia)

[Buggaluggs]

Well. We've lost every game since 1953, so technically this is the best chance to win.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm not sure of the stature of Peter Jackson or The Rugby Paper, but he's touting the first test in NZ as Wales' best chance to beat the All Blacks since 1953.

I agree that if the All Blacks' new combinations don't click immediately, and Wales plays at their full potential for 80+, then of course an upset is a possibility but is it really the best opportunity since '53?

For a start, it's being played in New Zealand and home advantage definitely counts here. Not only is it a home game, but it's at Eden Park where no visiting team has triumphed since 1994, which will be before living memory for some of the players on the field, I expect. The All Blacks have never lost a home test match under Steve Hansen. Previous coach Graham Henry's side only lost 3 at home (out of 51), mot recently to the Springboks in 2009.

Surely Wales would have been better placed to win at least a few of the 16 matches played at home (including one at Wembley) against NZ since 1953? 1978, for instance, when NZ squeaked home by 1 point against the Grand Slam winners, or 2004 when a team that won only half its 3N matches got out of jail by the same margin? Other Welsh grand slammers have taken on the All Blacks including in 2012, 2008, 2005

http://www.allblacks.com/News/28956/wal ... -willliams

When do you think Wales best chance to beat NZ again has been?* Or is this tour it?

*For ease of reference:
Tests in NZ: 1969 x2, 1988 x2, 2003, 2010 x2
In Wales: 1963, 1967, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1989, 1997 (Wembley), 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014
Neutral: 1987 (Ballymore), 1995 (Ellis Park), 2003 (Stadium Australia)

I'm kind of with Buggaluggs on this - our chances of winning any of those previous matches is now 0, so this is our best chance . It's also pretty difficult to work out what our pre-match chances appeared to be for each of those matches (wouldn't you really need to ignore the actual result to do that?). Taking the results into account, sure, since I don't expect us to push them as close as 1978 or 2004 we seem to have a worse chance this time, but what were the expectations before each of those matches?

I think we do have a chance of winning one of these 3 tests, but it is very difficult to know what sort of disarray NZ are in post-RWC (probably not anything that resembles disarray we might recognise....), so it's pretty hard to say. Perhaps we'll catch them cold in the first test, or perhaps we'll get stronger as the series progresses (which is what we usually do). We have three chances, and I think that even Gatland will be a little more open to new tactical ideas if we are still looking for a win at the third test, I just hope he brings the squad to do this.

[Lizard]

So far, our disarray seems the right sort. There is no real argument that Sam Cane is the next starting 7. Obviously he's not Richie but no one could be. Any of Cruden, Sopoaga or Barrett could start at 10, although Cruden's goal kicking is not great this season. Barrett's ability to cover FB might see him as the bench option, but a young bolter called Damien McKenzie could also fill that role in the absence of Slade.

The only area of uncertainty is the midfield. Charlie Ngatai is in hot form, Fekitoa is the "project", SBW is playing 7s but still in the frame I think. So we have the talent but getting a balanced combination anywhere near the Nonu/Smith alliance will be impossible given the relative lack of experience.

I think your best shot is the first test. Frankly, I'm not sure that Gatland has the coaching ability to adapt and refresh a game plan to counter in the 2nd or 3rd tests whatever the All Blacks bring to the table in the first. Hansen will not be going too complex I expect with new combinations and no warm-up matches, especially in that first test.

It's going to be an interesting contest, anyway. I'm looking forward to it.

[UKHamlet]

I hate it when we get talked up. There isn't any real prospect of winning a test in NZ at the moment. We're just not firing properly and we'd have to be at our very best and NZ not so good for it to happen.

[Billyfish]

I hate it when we get talked up. There isn't any real prospect of winning a test in NZ at the moment. We're just not firing properly and we'd have to be at our very best and NZ not so good for it to happen.

This. We're below par atm. And par isn't good enough. Best chance in recent years was praps the last World Cup before the tip tackle incident. That was the team pretty much on top of its game.

[Sandydragon]

I hate it when we get talked up. There isn't any real prospect of winning a test in NZ at the moment. We're just not firing properly and we'd have to be at our very best and NZ not so good for it to happen.

This. We're below par atm. And par isn't good enough. Best chance in recent years was praps the last World Cup before the tip tackle incident. That was the team pretty much on top of its game.

Agreed. That was perhaps the best rugby our team haas played to date.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I hate it when we get talked up. There isn't any real prospect of winning a test in NZ at the moment. We're just not firing properly and we'd have to be at our very best and NZ not so good for it to happen.

This. We're below par atm. And par isn't good enough. Best chance in recent years was praps the last World Cup before the tip tackle incident. That was the team pretty much on top of its game.

Agreed. That was perhaps the best rugby our team haas played to date.

Except for the goal-kicking, which was dismal (albeit offset by the fact that no one could kick straight in that world cup).

[Sandydragon]

This. We're below par atm. And par isn't good enough. Best chance in recent years was praps the last World Cup before the tip tackle incident. That was the team pretty much on top of its game.

Agreed. That was perhaps the best rugby our team haas played to date.

Except for the goal-kicking, which was dismal (albeit offset by the fact that no one could kick straight in that world cup).

Wasn't there a ball issue in that tournament? I seem to remember Dan a Carter missing a few, or was that the 07 tournament?

[kk67]

Almost any of the AB's XV could play at 7 and it wouldn't make any difference to the scoreline.
I wasn't amazing at 'the math' but I'm fairly sure Buggs is right.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Agreed. That was perhaps the best rugby our team haas played to date.

Except for the goal-kicking, which was dismal (albeit offset by the fact that no one could kick straight in that world cup).

Wasn't there a ball issue in that tournament? I seem to remember Dan a Carter missing a few, or was that the 07 tournament?

Something like that, I think everyone was missing them, including Wilko. Not sure if the true cause was ever discovered though...

[Buggaluggs]

Cuthbert ruled out of Wales' New Zealand tour (http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/ ... ee-surgery)

ABs in with a chance then.

[Lord Llandaff]

To play along with this, our best chance to win post 1953 was certainly 1978 when we should have won. After that comes 2004 when we were the better side over 80 minutes but were undone by a moment of individual skill.

But back in reality, our best chance to break the duck is always the next game, meaning it was a pointless thing to say and thus this is a rather pointless thread.

[Son of Mathonwy]

To play along with this, our best chance to win post 1953 was certainly 1978 when we should have won. After that comes 2004 when we were the better side over 80 minutes but were undone by a moment of individual skill.

But back in reality, our best chance to break the duck is always the next game, meaning it was a pointless thing to say and thus this is a rather pointless thread.

Yes, this is one of our better chances, but still a long shot. We'd have needed to play a lot better in the 6N (and got a Grand Slam) to even begin to think that this is our best shot.