RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Would agree with you there. But, by the time a professional player reaches international standard or plays for a top club, his skills should already be at a high level. Skills are something you hone as a kid learning the game of rugby with endless hours of running, passing, kicking, tackling etc. so that these things become second nature and almost automatic. The notion that you can now be picked for a national team, but then must go on to develop your skills seems a little arse-about-face. In my own playing days, a long time ago, many clubs did not have good gym facilities, were not into endless weight pumping and bulking up, and so spent most training sessions predominantly playing with the ball. The result was pretty good running and passing skills. Now, an ordinary pass, placed in front of the receiver, at belly button level, with the right weight and timing, is raved about as something special rather than the accepted norm.
The gym rat culture rules unfortunately and England (as well as several other nations) seem to be heading even more in this direction. The bludgeon has overcome the rapier.

Totally right

Other than the skills on players in the top tier are now well beyond anything we used to see, they're even higher than those belonging to the mighty Spiffy in his school days, even allowing for school rugby being rightly famed for its high level skills.

What the skills in the current game haven't been able to do is keep pace with the rise of defensive systems that apply such pressure. So yes the bludgeon is winning out, but even those 9s we complain about are well ahead of the skills we saw 15-20 years back, and it's just the pace on the modern game with all the pressure which makes them look suspect in relative terms.

I do think that should mean still more emphasis on skills, but the idea we used to have good running and passing skills and now we don't is only true relative to how much defence has improved. So if we were able to expose the 2001 version of say Gregan and Larkham to a modern defence they'd be in for something of a culture shock and then some.

Also of course skills should improve on players coming into the professional game. The idea your skill levels are fixed as a junior and then can only be maintained as a pro is just weird, as when given access to time and quality education skill levels will of course improve vastly, both range of skills and standard of skill level. What is fixed as a junior is the top end potential of skills such as hand-eye coordination because that's how our brains develop, but where you end up within that potential is still something that can be heavily influenced by practice.

Don’t think anyone said your skills should be fixed and fine when you start pro rugby. The point was more about international level, where you’d think you’d have to have a high skill level to even get there, so international coaches should be able to focus on other stuff. That’s not the case, certainly under pressure; many basics are missing in many players too. That’s not to say all coaches at any level, and all players at any level shouldn’t always be looking to improve ‘skills’.

Btw I do think hand eye coordination can be improved, even if marginally; there were some studies in cricket done on this.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Totally right

Other than the skills on players in the top tier are now well beyond anything we used to see, they're even higher than those belonging to the mighty Spiffy in his school days, even allowing for school rugby being rightly famed for its high level skills.

What the skills in the current game haven't been able to do is keep pace with the rise of defensive systems that apply such pressure. So yes the bludgeon is winning out, but even those 9s we complain about are well ahead of the skills we saw 15-20 years back, and it's just the pace on the modern game with all the pressure which makes them look suspect in relative terms.

I do think that should mean still more emphasis on skills, but the idea we used to have good running and passing skills and now we don't is only true relative to how much defence has improved. So if we were able to expose the 2001 version of say Gregan and Larkham to a modern defence they'd be in for something of a culture shock and then some.

Also of course skills should improve on players coming into the professional game. The idea your skill levels are fixed as a junior and then can only be maintained as a pro is just weird, as when given access to time and quality education skill levels will of course improve vastly, both range of skills and standard of skill level. What is fixed as a junior is the top end potential of skills such as hand-eye coordination because that's how our brains develop, but where you end up within that potential is still something that can be heavily influenced by practice.

Don’t think anyone said your skills should be fixed and fine when you start pro rugby. The point was more about international level, where you’d think you’d have to have a high skill level to even get there, so international coaches should be able to focus on other stuff. That’s not the case, certainly under pressure; many basics are missing in many players too. That’s not to say all coaches at any level, and all players at any level shouldn’t always be looking to improve ‘skills’.

Btw I do think hand eye coordination can be improved, even if marginally; there were some studies in cricket done on this.

I suppose it depends what you take from 'must go on to develop your skills'. I'm taking a harsh view of the comment, but I always object to the idea that learning lower rated skills at so much a lower level it's barely the same game is especially relevant.

And I agree hand eye coordination can be improved. Just not the potential, the potential is fixed as a young teen

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Other than the skills on players in the top tier are now well beyond anything we used to see, they're even higher than those belonging to the mighty Spiffy in his school days, even allowing for school rugby being rightly famed for its high level skills.

What the skills in the current game haven't been able to do is keep pace with the rise of defensive systems that apply such pressure. So yes the bludgeon is winning out, but even those 9s we complain about are well ahead of the skills we saw 15-20 years back, and it's just the pace on the modern game with all the pressure which makes them look suspect in relative terms.

I do think that should mean still more emphasis on skills, but the idea we used to have good running and passing skills and now we don't is only true relative to how much defence has improved. So if we were able to expose the 2001 version of say Gregan and Larkham to a modern defence they'd be in for something of a culture shock and then some.

Also of course skills should improve on players coming into the professional game. The idea your skill levels are fixed as a junior and then can only be maintained as a pro is just weird, as when given access to time and quality education skill levels will of course improve vastly, both range of skills and standard of skill level. What is fixed as a junior is the top end potential of skills such as hand-eye coordination because that's how our brains develop, but where you end up within that potential is still something that can be heavily influenced by practice.

Don’t think anyone said your skills should be fixed and fine when you start pro rugby. The point was more about international level, where you’d think you’d have to have a high skill level to even get there, so international coaches should be able to focus on other stuff. That’s not the case, certainly under pressure; many basics are missing in many players too. That’s not to say all coaches at any level, and all players at any level shouldn’t always be looking to improve ‘skills’.

Btw I do think hand eye coordination can be improved, even if marginally; there were some studies in cricket done on this.

I suppose it depends what you take from 'must go on to develop your skills'. I'm taking a harsh view of the comment, but I always object to the idea that learning lower rated skills at so much a lower level it's barely the same game is especially relevant.

And I agree hand eye coordination can be improved. Just not the potential, the potential is fixed as a young teen

I think Spiffy is saying there is a base level of skills to get to be an international, not that you develop those basics in intl camps, though I do expect international coaches to continue to develop players. That’s my view anyway.

And fair point on potential.

I think I'm about 50/50 on the skills vs defence thing.

It's a thing that gets remarked on every so often how kids in NZ particularly (and Aus with various sports I'd guess) grow up with passing a rugby ball around being an every day thing, I don't imagine there's any replacement for that sort of familiarity from an early age. I'd agree all the current top level players probably have fantastic ball skills, that they spend hours practicing, but that feels like a slightly different thing to having it there as a deep-rooted instinct when the pressure comes on. Not all their tight forwards handle like Coles or Afoa but it doesn't seem so exceptional to them as when we have a Mako or Sinkler turn up.

A few weeks back I was watching some Premiership highlights and then flicked over to the Bledisloe game. It was like an entirely different sport. Not having to spend so much time compensating for passes being inaccurate must be nice. Saturday looked like a perfect representation of Jones's idea that England have a big tough forward pack but not enough skill in the backs or out wide to consistently put threatening runners in to space. Even Ford looked pretty hopeless.

I'm sure Farrell could turn up at any small club around the country and play like Carlos Spencer if he wanted to, but doing it with a top level defence in your face is seemingly not worth the risk for top players/coaches right now. Look at the way Finn Russell is talked about- he's one of few in the world who reliably gets his team through the defensive line several times a game, but if he throws an intercept or makes a mistake he's a flake. Most coaches (it would seem) would trade him for Farrell with his reputation as an organiser and a steady-hand, offering maybe 1 or 2 of those moments a season that truly unlock a defence. Several missed tackles here and there or a dozen aimless kicks either go completely unnoticed or are just considered a worthy trade-off for work-rate and compliance with the systems. Is this the only logical route the game can go?

In our pack we now have Mako, Sinckler, Billy, Maro all commonly at first receiver. We'd use George in there too if needs be. That's a really high level that stands up to any pack. So it would seem we could push more use of the ball, we just don't want to. And not just because of handling but also being able to support that

Banquo wrote: I think Spiffy is saying there is a base level of skills to get to be an international, not that you develop those basics in intl camps, though I do expect international coaches to continue to develop players. That’s my view anyway.

And fair point on potential.

The point on potential isn't mine so it stands more chance of being right. That belongs to science, or fake news if you will

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think Spiffy is saying there is a base level of skills to get to be an international, not that you develop those basics in intl camps, though I do expect international coaches to continue to develop players. That’s my view anyway.

And fair point on potential.

The point on potential isn't mine so it stands more chance of being right. That belongs to science, or fake news if you will

Was more meaning I hadn’t taken in that you’d referred to potential.

One thing I do have to say about England's handling is that our timing is really bad and has been for a while. Players move early, players move late, hardly anyone moves on time. This both makes it really hard to get your pass into the breadbasket when trying to second guess runners who move so inconsistently, and it also makes potentially good passes bad because the receiver isn't in the right place.

And, well, it's my major, major gripe with Youngs. Not with the standard of his passing or his decision making, both of which can be decidedly shonky at times, but his diddly daddling. Jeez, he really demands a lot off his runners to know how to time it.

Jones also prefers Farrell whenever possible, and Owen much prefers to both receive the ball standing still, and pass standing still or moving sideways. Which, again, makes it insanely difficult for anyone to time anything.

Basically, what I'm saying, is if we drop our halfbacks, we'd see a totally different England.

But Jones can't do that because of DEFENCE! Youngs is probably our best defender at 9 and Farrell is big and not threatened by big runners and has that anti-English toff demeanour that Jones wants.

So yeah.

Our pack are pretty good ball in hand, I think, they stand up well against any team. There are some weak spots: Itoje could be a bit better, Underhill, too, but the rest are pretty good or exceptional in some cases.

On the club scene, yeah, the standard is terrible. But I do feel like the rules and interpretations at the moment really do not help. It's all about clear ball presentation, which means handling is pointless: we're not going to pass the ball away from the support!

Plenty of that I agree with. This really would be an ideal game to start Robson and Ford and rest Youngs. That still means Farrell at 12, but it also means there might be a bit more attacking momentum before the ball reaches him.

Eddie is right that putting the ball through the hands rarely works as it used to. However, it doesn’t mean it should be ignored completely. Our players are generally pretty good at using the ball well on the counter attack, but we should be capable of recognising when we can put the ball through the hands in phase play.

Obviously it’s very different, but one of the things I really enjoyed watching Quins on Saturday was the ambition and willingness to use the ball. Care’s try was like something from another era, 9 passes to 10 who passes to 12 who passes to 15 who passes to the 13 who beats the defender and then picks out the 9 running a support line on the inside. All the passes were in front of a player running on to the ball at pace. I get that defences in test rugby are far better than the Saints defence on Saturday, but it should still be possible to play ...

Surely, the authorities could find a way to ban the caterpillar nonsense. Reducing box-kicking would be a good start.

Its a matter of whether you want to play with a bit of ambition or not.
If you have the clear intent to play, to move the ball, keep it alive and play at high pace, then you will.
It's perfectly possible to do these things and achieve good results.
The Laws do not rule out innovation, adventure, flair, daring, they dont prohibit passing the ball, offloading out of the tackle or keeping the ball alive in the same way they dont stop you kicking the ball away and defending all day long.
England currently simply dont want to play much.

I'm not convinced better or at least more open rugby follows if making box kicks harder.

The problems come from the speed of defence off the line and the fitness which allows them to repeat that, and that so many defenders are on their feet. I still remember Launch and Lawes many seasons back and thinking christ the way they press the midfield would be a nightmare for the opposition 10s because it changes the picture in attack so much, and we're miles beyond that now, it's almost a different game in defence Vs those innocent days of 2012/13

So you want changes that see wider pitches, less players, or more practically and keeping it union a deeper starting point for defences or at least something to hold that blitz and something to attract defenders into rucks leaving less in the line.

If you were going to make one change as things stand it'd be that if a player tackled and held up in a maul gets to ground the maul is then a ruck and that the carrier must be released and attack allowed to play, that would allow attack a system to suck in defenders, but that's also a change which perhaps (likely?) would encourage bigger and more powerful players selected in the centres when the choke tackle is some help to the smaller defender as things stand. Although the other change might be to insist players actually bind at the ruck, it's not clear what impact that might have but it's never been trialled and at worst seems likely to improve player safety

fivepointer wrote:Its a matter of whether you want to play with a bit of ambition or not.
If you have the clear intent to play, to move the ball, keep it alive and play at high pace, then you will.
It's perfectly possible to do these things and achieve good results.

I think we'd have to accept you would have good results, but you'd also be much more likely to have some bad results. The best players the world has ever seen (by dint of the improvements in professionalism not that they're inherently better) are struggling like crazy on attack, but I would like them to change the emphasis in training, in selection and tactics and often in decisions taken on the field, because the balance of the game is making it hard to watch, AND the game now so often isn't about a contest for the ball, whether skewed feeds in the scrum, players off their feet at what passes for a ruck, or players not even contesting the ruck

Oakboy wrote:Surely, the authorities could find a way to ban the caterpillar nonsense. Reducing box-kicking would be a good start.

2 tweaks to the Laws could help. Rigidly enforce a use it in 3 second rule. Dont give the SH unlimited time to get set and for everyone else to get into the starting blocks to chase a kick. Make the SH play the ball as soon as it is clearly won. Second to that, rule that no one may join a ruck when the ball has been won. That would stop the caterpillar being formed.
Both these would speed up play and may result in a lot less kicking. If you reduce the time that the SH has to kick he may be less inclined to do so. Right now, it is too easy for him to sit back and take his time. That needs to stop.

So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

Where do I sign?

Being able to use less replacements would be ostensibly the simplest way. Banning the caterpillar also easy.

Digby wrote:So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

On the squeeze ball thing, I think you’d end up with a quite a lot of dead rucks, though one of the great ‘mysteries’ of the game is how trapped ball works its way to the back of the ruck without anyone being allowed to touch it with their hands.

To be honest, before ‘tweaking’ yet again because of what may be a temporary coaching fad, need to really think through impacts, as always (as we see now) get unintended consequences.

Digby wrote:So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

Was having a chat with some old front row colleagues (and opponents) yesterday and one of the hookers suggested that the ref uses the spray that soccer refs have to make the mark for the scrum. 1 to stop crabbing or early push 2 so the ball goes in close to straight!
Perhaps also using it to stop players like Sexton, Biggar and Farrell taking an extra 5 yards when kicking so they have to actually take the kick through the mark!
And finally to mark the lineout to stop some of the cheating there!

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

On the squeeze ball thing, I think you’d end up with a quite a lot of dead rucks, though one of the great ‘mysteries’ of the game is how trapped ball works its way to the back of the ruck without anyone being allowed to touch it with their hands.

To be honest, before ‘tweaking’ yet again because of what may be a temporary coaching fad, need to really think through impacts, as always (as we see now) get unintended consequences.

Players would need to think more in advance about how they carry into contact, or even how to avoid that, and then there'd be a contest. We might well need some further tweaks, but there should in the first instance be a contest else the rest seems moot, and squeezable looks very much to be about removing a contest

oldbackrow wrote:

Digby wrote:So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

Was having a chat with some old front row colleagues (and opponents) yesterday and one of the hookers suggested that the ref uses the spray that soccer refs have to make the mark for the scrum. 1 to stop crabbing or early push 2 so the ball goes in close to straight!
Perhaps also using it to stop players like Sexton, Biggar and Farrell taking an extra 5 yards when kicking so they have to actually take the kick through the mark!
And finally to mark the lineout to stop some of the cheating there!

I can't believe they don't do this already.

Though in an age of GPS I also think my idea of taser boosts needs to be considered, allowing any player going offside, closing the gap or what have you to get zapped and spend 5 minutes twitching on the floor whilst the game continues

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

On the squeeze ball thing, I think you’d end up with a quite a lot of dead rucks, though one of the great ‘mysteries’ of the game is how trapped ball works its way to the back of the ruck without anyone being allowed to touch it with their hands.

To be honest, before ‘tweaking’ yet again because of what may be a temporary coaching fad, need to really think through impacts, as always (as we see now) get unintended consequences.

Players would need to think more in advance about how they carry into contact, or even how to avoid that, and then there'd be a contest. We might well need some further tweaks, but there should in the first instance be a contest else the rest seems moot, and squeezable looks very much to be about removing a contest

It doesn’t happen that much now, as it was banned once, and then only because players find themselves in awkward positions, which can happen no matter how much care you take going into contact. I don’t see it as a major issue frankly.
Further tweaks, end up not having a tweak like effect, experience tells us.

One of the big ironies is that in correctly trying to enable a contest at the breakdown, sides are now committing more attackers to the breakdown to secure ball, that they then kick away (oft because they’ve run out of resources, whilst 15 defenders or so are free )

Digby wrote: Though in an age of GPS I also think my idea of taser boosts needs to be considered, allowing any player going offside, closing the gap or what have you to get zapped and spend 5 minutes twitching on the floor whilst the game continues

Where do I sign?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: On the squeeze ball thing, I think you’d end up with a quite a lot of dead rucks, though one of the great ‘mysteries’ of the game is how trapped ball works its way to the back of the ruck without anyone being allowed to touch it with their hands.

To be honest, before ‘tweaking’ yet again because of what may be a temporary coaching fad, need to really think through impacts, as always (as we see now) get unintended consequences.

Players would need to think more in advance about how they carry into contact, or even how to avoid that, and then there'd be a contest. We might well need some further tweaks, but there should in the first instance be a contest else the rest seems moot, and squeezable looks very much to be about removing a contest

It doesn’t happen that much now, as it was banned once, and then only because players find themselves in awkward positions, which can happen no matter how much care you take going into contact. I don’t see it as a major issue frankly.
Further tweaks, end up not having a tweak like effect, experience tells us.

One of the big ironies is that in correctly trying to enable a contest at the breakdown, sides are now committing more attackers to the breakdown to secure ball, that they then kick away (oft because they’ve run out of resources, whilst 15 defenders or so are free )

I don't disagree players find themselves in awkward positions, but in that instance let go of the ball and roll away or get pinged rather than tucking the ball under your body and waiting for support. And it happens multiple times a game

oldbackrow wrote:

Digby wrote:So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

Was having a chat with some old front row colleagues (and opponents) yesterday and one of the hookers suggested that the ref uses the spray that soccer refs have to make the mark for the scrum. 1 to stop crabbing or early push 2 so the ball goes in close to straight!
Perhaps also using it to stop players like Sexton, Biggar and Farrell taking an extra 5 yards when kicking so they have to actually take the kick through the mark!
And finally to mark the lineout to stop some of the cheating there!

SCW gets a lot of stick but he was prepared to learn from other sports. This would be a simple copy from football. More difficult would be no clashes of international/top club fixtures but I'd vote for both.