Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

The backstory of how Mark Jones' Wales nearly shocked New Zealand

Wales nearly beat New Zealand in Paarl last Saturday (Photo by World Rugby)

It’s extraordinary what a bit of clear and effective re-organisation can quickly achieve. Just a few months ago Wales had been rendered winless in the Six Nations U20s, enduring 17- and 16-point home losses to Ireland and England as well as getting hammered on the road by a 50-point margin in France after tight affairs versus Scotland and Italy escaped them by one and four points.

ADVERTISEMENT

The wooden spoon campaign resulted in Byron Hayward resigning as the lead pathway coach and into the breach on May 11 as an interim head coach came Mark Jones, the ex-Test winger whose return to Worcester after successfully assisting at the Super Rugby Crusaders came a cropper when the Warriors fell into administration last September.

Forty-five days on from his appointment, Jones remarkably got the misfiring Wales to within a whisker of ambushing New Zealand. A 19-5 interval lead in Paarl on Saturday had rekindled memories of the famed 9-6 surprise that had taken place just down the road in Stellenbosch 11 years ago, the Welsh class of 2012 spectacularly ending New Zealand’s 21-match unbeaten run in the tournament.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

However, whereas Wales were able to withstand a Baby Blacks onslaught in the deluge that fell at the Danie Craven Stadium all those years ago, the dry conditions in Paarl allowed New Zealand to move the ball when it mattered, and they eventually clinched a 27-26 comeback win. There were plenty of plaudits due Jones’ way for the defiant way Wales had played but he was having none of it in the aftermath.

“I haven’t done anything,” he insisted to RugbyPass about his few short weeks with the Wales squad. “What I have done is align the group, given the guys a clear purpose and a training plan that replicates what we are trying to produce – and the players are putting the effort in and have brought it alive.

Related

“It’s like a diet: unless you adhere to it, it is not going to do you any good. I have got to give all credit to the staff and the players. I also have got to send a message that we shouldn’t be happy that we have lost by a point. We should be disappointed, but we have to use it as fuel for our next games.”

That will happen on Thursday when they take on Japan in Stellenbosch, and Jones will be looking to see more of what inspiringly unfolded against New Zealand. Asked what he said to his team at the interval in Paarl after they had secured a deserved 14-point lead, he said: “My message was to stick to the plan.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We came up with a pretty clear game plan and other than the first seven or eight minutes of the first half, we nailed it and it was working effectively for us and the scoreboard reflected that. We talked about a few areas of improvement second half. We felt that we could get more line speed off our set-piece, we were missing the jump a little bit off their lineout.

“But really we spoke just about continuing what we were doing well: let’s be really dominant at the maul, let’s get field position through it and then let’s use our backs when we shorten up the defensive line. To be fair to the All Blacks, they challenged us physically around our defensive game.

“We gave a few soft penalties away, we didn’t get a restart right from conceding a try and we conceded two quick back-to-back tries which shifted the scoreboard but also shifted the momentum and by the time the boys had worked out how to get momentum back, it was a little bit late. Proud of the way the guys responded and adapted. We have taken two points from the game, and we can also take a lot of positives.”

The biggest encouragement was how Wales stayed in the fight even though New Zealand threatened like they could run away with it having moved 27-19 ahead. “The last 20 minutes of the game was a real focus for us based on the Six Nations,” explained Jones. “It’s an area that dropped off tactically and physically for us.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We put a lot of time into that and ironically we looked stronger at the end of each half. That is a real improvement, and these players will get a lot of confidence from that when we go in to play our future games, that we can go for the full 80. The key learning for us is tactically getting the big moments right, especially when the scoreboard is in the balance.

“The whole team stood out,” he added. “I thought the front five were tremendous around the maul and setting the maul. I thought our half-backs were excellent at pulling the trigger when the opportunities were on to take points with the boot or through handling. And I thought defensively our back row was tenacious and fought for everything, so there was a real full house of a team performance.

“But we have to park this performance now. There is a lot of learnings to take out from it both positive and work-ons, but it should give the whole squad optimism around our next game. The challenge is, can we repeat it? There is the challenge for the group, can we do it back-to-back?”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 39 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen."


That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.


"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

57 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

57 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

57 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Ian Foster: 'You kid yourself that we were robbed' Ian Foster: 'You kid yourself that we were robbed'
Search