Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:25 am  

Jukesays wrote:

PS
If you think Madges rugby was off the cuff then I suspect you may be trying to shoehorn something into fit into your argument.
Madges team were so good because they were far more organised, structured, stronger, fitter etc. They then used those advantageous and played off the back of it.
If you think they sat down and watched a few videos of the old days and then just copied then then your in a stranger world than I thought. There were "Moves", and tactics Madge employed allowed Roberts/Tomkins to play off the back of it when the time was right.
If they werent so dominant in the other areas of the game they wouldn't have been able to do that.

Show me where i said Madges team played off the cuff. I didnt, you are trying to put words into my mouth. I said they ran set moves. Whether or not it was around Roberts or Tomkins makes no difference, they had set plays which involved various ways of confusing defenders and creating openings rather than this single idea of swinging the ball left to right along the line.

Jukesays wrote:

That's what this team is missing, the dominance and structure in lots of other areas in the game to demoralised the opposition.
The attacking part of the game.will improve off the back of that.
But if you dont tackle well, defend well, kick well, hold onto the ball well, run harder and stronger than the opposition then you'll find trying to play rugby under the backdrop of that is far far harder.

I have never said dont have structure and dont try to dominate the opposition with the basics. I have merely argued for some entertaining set plays and more variety to our attack at the right times. The easy way to do that is look at some of the stuff teams of the past used to play and shoehorn them in to the modern game. Since Andy Gregory was a master at pulling off set plays then it would be a good idea to have him try to recreate some of them with the current team which they could then use when we are stuck on the opposition line and the usual left/right ball swinging is not working. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges and coming up with bananas. Your argument seems to be that nothing will work other than what we are doing now because most teams play the same way.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:44 am  

The_Enforcer wrote:

Show me where i said Madges team played off the cuff. I didnt, you are trying to put words into my mouth. I said they ran set moves. Whether or not it was around Roberts or Tomkins makes no difference, they had set plays which involved various ways of confusing defenders and creating openings rather than this single idea of swinging the ball left to right along the line.

I have never said dont have structure and dont try to dominate the opposition with the basics. I have merely argued for some entertaining set plays and more variety to our attack at the right times. The easy way to do that is look at some of the stuff teams of the past used to play and shoehorn them in to the modern game. Since Andy Gregory was a master at pulling off set plays then it would be a good idea to have him try to recreate some of them with the current team which they could then use when we are stuck on the opposition line and the usual left/right ball swinging is not working. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges and coming up with bananas. Your argument seems to be that nothing will work other than what we are doing now because most teams play the same way.

I accept i used the term off the cuff instead of set plays incorrectly.
Point still stands, it was done within structure and after gaining dominance in other areas of the game.

As for me trying to put words into peoples mouths I think you need to have a look at your own posts first.

Let's get back to the initial point.
You think watching DVDs and implementing plays from the 80s/90s in tandem with getting Andy Greg back to oversee some of this is the way forward.

I dont

Well leave it at that?

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:04 am  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Don’t think any you listed are a patch on...

Thurston
Cronk
Lockyer
Pearce
Etc.

This is coming from someone who’s fav all time 7 is Andy Greg.

I think people are easily mislead. The game has moved on. It’s so much faster, bigger bodies playing at such a pace. Decision time is way less; the ‘run around’ and other individual plays no longer work against such players.

Thesedays our halfbacks are as big as forwards from the 80s and have way more skills. For example Mitchell Pearce, a 7 is actually bigger than his father who represented Aus as a forward.

If you transported a young Andy Greg in a time machine to 2019; he’d be creamed and stopped in his tracks before he could try a run around.

Sport evolves, as each team, league strives for success and an edge over their opposition.

Kenny, Lewis, Daley, Langer, Fittler, Johns, Lamb, Mortimer, Raudonikis, Stuart, Lyons and Sterling....think you'll find I win

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:24 am  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Enjoy your Xmas mate. And let’s hope for a good 2020 in cherry and white

And to you and yours, Looking forward to next season, Hope we can pull off a CC final win

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:36 am  

Jukesays wrote:

I'm not sure where you get any of that from and how it relates to my post?
Where did I say anyone has to accept that today is better, you dont have to accept anything.
Your saying in essence today's players and structures are more about brawn over skill? I'm not saying any different.
Just that today's players HAVE to be fitter/stronger etc to be able to compete.
If they dont they will be blown away by what may be a less skilful player but who is better physically, mentally, coached etc.
The amateur game is/was littered with players who had more skill than some of their professional counterparts, but other areas of their game/preparation wasnt up to it.
Lots of people are saying we want to see more creative half backs, fine, the game itself isnt demanding that you have to be less skilful just that tou have to be super fit and fit into structures that the game/coaches demands.
It's quite simple, if more players are fitter, stronger, faster and they all perform well within a good organised structure there will be less opportunities for the other team to exploit.
That's not decrying the skilful players who may find it harder to bring down structures harder than their previous counterparts, it's just harder.

F1 (not really a fan), but are we saying Stirling Moss, ayrton Senna, James Hunt are better/more skilful than today's drivers?
Their asset (The car/technology) demands that they drive and perform in a certain way. I'm sure F1 fans may say that the old sport was better with more passing and excitement, but they would get blown away in today's races.

Golf, Jackn Nicklaus is the Gaareatest
But he wouldn't have won as many majors today as he did back then. He had that something that separated him from his counterparts of that era. Modern players have taken what worked and made it better and there are now More Better players. It may not be quite as exciting in some ways and the game itself has had to change to make/give some of the technology advances in the game less impact (longer holes and more complicated hole design).

Snooker - More better player's in the game, players could go out and try to play like Alex Higgins, but theyll get exposed and their deficiencies exposed as the more professional players of today's game would expose those deficiencies better. And yes it may be less exciting, yes it may only be better to watch today for those who want to get involved I the more technical aspects (not like me and you and the average fan). But it is.

Today's game isnt as exciting for me, its individual stand out players arent as exciting (Because the gap between the best and the worst isnt as great).
But unless we can develop the game where we all decide not to "Over coach" players or have game plans that let players play then advancements in coaching, game plans, structures, fitness, strength etx will keep ploughing ahead.
Individual players will always rise to the top in one way or another, but just being the best player at 16 and not buying into the other assets of the game isnt enough.

What would the Wigan team of the 90s do to the Wigan team of the 60s?
Individually the Wigan team of the late 50s/60s in Boston/ashton/sullivan/ Davies/Bolton/parr/Mctigue/Evan's/Ashurst etc had some of the best players the games produced
But the advances in all areas of the game meant that the 90s team would beat the 60s team comfortably.
Although the advancements maybe haven't come as far in the same time theyve still advanced.

In the 70s the British game carried on playing the game as it had in the 50/60s and whilst the Aussies (Jack Gibson, wheres CP Wigan these days) carried on moving forward we didn't and weve still not caught up.

The aussie game itself though suffered in some ways, the risk free structured game was labelled as boring by a lot in the early 80s (check out some of the scores in the Aussie GF's or read Monies book).
But those teams and players, even though the game may have gone risk free and structured, showed how far it had advanced when compared to best we could offer whobhadnt advanced.

I agree that the game itself may need to look at more ways of increasing excitement through changes in rules etc. And I believe a further reduction to 6 substitutions would help, keeping the game moving and less stoppages to increase fatigue factor etc would let some of the more skilful.playwrs flourish.

Anyway, just getting in Manchester Victoria and it's been a thoughtful train journey. As I say I'm not saying today's players are "Better" than their counterparts of yesteryear, just that the advances in lots of areas give them advantageous to be Better and that although the spectacle itself may not as exciting etc the full time professionalism and the advancement year on year leads to it being harder and harder to exploit deficiencies as there are less and less.

Merry Xmas everyone (it may even be new year by the time you've finished reading this).

Some good points taken onboard and I think we broadly agree. I think we're we probably don't entirely agree is that I think we have gone way ott on fitness and structure at the expense of individualism and skills.
Could it be that improving players skills other than defending is a lot harder and more time consuming than fitness work etc? Do coaches take the "easier option"?

In a nutshell I just want a bit more excitement from the game ideally with fast open competitive rugby. I don't want 42-38 games I love a tight physical game but a tight physical game with the odd moment of genius or superlative skill that you wait to get back to the pub to regale about.
As I've said on previous posts the game historically works in cycles so I'm hopeful the day of the wrestle and incessant 5 drives and a kick won't last forever. I'm not convinced about LM but more than happy to be proven wrong that he can instill/allow a more attractive style into our game

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:16 am  

Pieman wrote:

Kenny, Lewis, Daley, Langer, Fittler, Johns, Lamb, Mortimer, Raudonikis, Stuart, Lyons and Sterling....think you'll find I win

Don’t forget I was told that it was all about super league and the English game. So while you’ve dipped into the NRL and albeit some of the players on the list had minimal time playing here; you’ll need to revise your list.

Ps I love how you end your post with ‘I win’ my 5 year old nephew would do exactly the same.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:16 am  

Pieman wrote:

Kenny, Lewis, Daley, Langer, Fittler, Johns, Lamb, Mortimer, Raudonikis, Stuart, Lyons and Sterling....think you'll find I win

Don’t forget I was told that it was all about super league and the English game. So while you’ve dipped into the NRL and albeit some of the players on the list had minimal time playing here; you’ll need to revise your list.

Ps I love how you end your post with ‘I win’ my 5 year old nephew would do exactly the same.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:42 am  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

Some good points taken onboard and I think we broadly agree. I think we're we probably don't entirely agree is that I think we have gone way ott on fitness and structure at the expense of individualism and skills.
Could it be that improving players skills other than defending is a lot harder and more time consuming than fitness work etc? Do coaches take the "easier option"?

In a nutshell I just want a bit more excitement from the game ideally with fast open competitive rugby. I don't want 42-38 games I love a tight physical game but a tight physical game with the odd moment of genius or superlative skill that you wait to get back to the pub to regale about.
As I've said on previous posts the game historically works in cycles so I'm hopeful the day of the wrestle and incessant 5 drives and a kick won't last forever. I'm not convinced about LM but more than happy to be proven wrong that he can instill/allow a more attractive style into our game

First things first
A Number of times this thread has mentioned that the games not as exciting - I've said it numerous times I agree - But that's a different subject.
The issue I have is that simply saying we want the game to be more exciting isn't going to stop the coaches from looking for that winning edge and Winning comes first - Also because the game isn't as exciting it's too simple to equate that to less skill, the Skills may be in different areas than they used to be but it's like saying that players of yesteryear couldn't tackle, they could, the emphasis though just wasn't on them defending as well and as structured as it is now.
The players of today are skilful, they just have to be skilful in ways that fit into the structures being coached.
With regards to going way OTT on fitness that's the issue though, We can't stop teams getting Bigger stronger, faster etc.
I feel the game needs to tweak the rules to assist us in Opening up the game more, reduced Substitutions, shot clock and quicker restarts will go some way to doing this by bringing in more of a fatigue factor leading to more space for "Flair" type players and attack to exploit it.

What I will say though is the interesting point you make about :-
"Could it be that improving players skills other than defending is a lot harder and more time consuming than fitness work etc? Do coaches take the "easier option"? "

I coach in a different sport, a sport that IMO has a better balance between Fitness & the Core Skills of the game (Cricket - With players U20 down to 7/8yr olds).
I've coached for 15 years now and learned a lot in that time and I do think that "The Coaching Manual" tends to teach coaches how to do things By the Book so to speak. That in itself can lead to a stagnant way of doing things and occasionally it needs innovation or outside the box thinking.

I've already Bored the pants off people too much so don't want to go on too much but Many years ago A player of mine was struggling in certain areas Batting. He had gone from being a free flowing/natural type player into someone who just looked so out of place at the crease he looked like a different person. Now he'd gone through a few issues "off the field" and my natural reaction was to talk "technique", Basics, focus on what he was doing wrong and work on those errors in his game and to be honest for a month or so we weren't getting anywhere fast.

I was going to look at some more intensive coaching from better/more qualified coaches than myself when an experienced guy I spoke to said he'd gone through something similar with a player a few years earlier.
His answer - Go into the nets, throw a hundred Balls at him and forget everything, forget technique, forget detail - just hit them, enjoy hitting them
We did this for a couple of sessions and the old player came back, started the season well, remained in the representative team and performed as well as he had ever done previously if not better.
I've used that 2/3 times more with players who seem to be struggling and it's amazing how if you remove all of the technical stuff and free up their minds to "Just Play" it can help.
The paradox is that you can't just do that in isolation - Because the game will expose other weaknesses that you have to work on and invariably those who work the hardest and focus on other teams weaknesses, and work on their own structures etc. invariably win.

So I do think that coaches do often "Take the easy option" although I would word it more along the lines of they get Stuck in their world, focus on the textbook too much and the problems they have they look for the answers within the same structures and working harder on those when that got them into those problems in the first place.

It's very complicated with everyone looking for that 1% winning edge and the answer for each player/team/coach isn't always the same, what works well for "A" may not work as well for "B" and that's what separates the winners from the Losers.

I'm not Lam's biggest fan and I do believe he spent the 2nd half of the year putting things Back in place defensively that had been overlooked early on in the year for the idea of playing a more "Open" type rugby. It was only when we got things defensively better that IMO we could start to play with the ball a bit better.
Ultimately it wasn't good enough and I think it took too much out of the tank catching up on the bad start but it showed to me that you can't just decide to Play more open, you still have to have the structures and systems that sit behind it.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:29 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Don’t forget I was told that it was all about super league and the English game. So while you’ve dipped into the NRL and albeit some of the players on the list had minimal time playing here; you’ll need to revise your list.

Ps I love how you end your post with ‘I win’ my 5 year old nephew would do exactly the same.

yeah we told you that 3 times but you kept mentioning them so I thought id add some abck to you....none of your list had any playing time here so you might need a rethink also

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:18 pm  

Pieman wrote:

yeah we told you that 3 times but you kept mentioning them so I thought id add some abck to you....none of your list had any playing time here so you might need a rethink also

So stick to your own rules.
Merry Christmas son. Have a good one