RugbyRebels

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
The lineouts we had against aus didn't seem preplanned. Structure in place of course, but we picked options on what was seen. Joe C wasnt given the ball back inside because it was well defended, Arundel got it for the last try because half the Aussie pack had fallen over and left a gaping hole.

Sure there'll be a default for when there's nothing on, which is likely the Billy V carry, but that's still a decision to be made and not just always to Billy on the first carry. After his carry it'll be reassessed, again the structure/framework will be planned in that scenario but not where the ball goes.

People from the camp are on record saying it’s a set number of set plays and then play it as you see it.

From the games it looks like to two successive big carries from the forwards to get some momentum and then the playmakers have license to call what they see. It actually worked ok in the first test and the issue was England weren't clinical more than we didn't open up holes and create chances. Needs to get better and we've got to show some more edge in attack but it looked to function more than it did in the 6N.

Seems to me because Jones picks system players. They do wonderfully on the stats, they are involved in build up, but they can’t finish things off. Players like Farrell, Nowell…

I’d much rather see more individual talents on the wing.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
The lineouts we had against aus didn't seem preplanned. Structure in place of course, but we picked options on what was seen. Joe C wasnt given the ball back inside because it was well defended, Arundel got it for the last try because half the Aussie pack had fallen over and left a gaping hole.

Sure there'll be a default for when there's nothing on, which is likely the Billy V carry, but that's still a decision to be made and not just always to Billy on the first carry. After his carry it'll be reassessed, again the structure/framework will be planned in that scenario but not where the ball goes.

People from the camp are on record saying it’s a set number of set plays and then play it as you see it.

From the games it looks like to two successive big carries from the forwards to get some momentum and then the playmakers have license to call what they see. It actually worked ok in the first test and the issue was England weren't clinical more than we didn't open up holes and create chances. Needs to get better and we've got to show some more edge in attack but it looked to function more than it did in the 6N.

Then how on earth did Arundell get the ball for the last try? It's not fixed. Yes, there's a default to revert to if nothing else is on, but the players aren't playing exactly that every time. There's a framework, and decisions to be made within it, and in set piece more than anything, you're going to have your fallback plays, where everyone will know where they should go, but each time it will be upto the playmakers to adjust if there's something to adjust to. Exactly why Arundell got the ball in acres of space, rather than just giving it to Billy V to crash up again.

That and Marchant's excellent tap-on in mid-field to get round the outside of the defence.

ad_tigger wrote:That and Marchant's excellent tap-on in mid-field to get round the outside of the defence.

Probably what got him dropped

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
The lineouts we had against aus didn't seem preplanned. Structure in place of course, but we picked options on what was seen. Joe C wasnt given the ball back inside because it was well defended, Arundel got it for the last try because half the Aussie pack had fallen over and left a gaping hole.

Sure there'll be a default for when there's nothing on, which is likely the Billy V carry, but that's still a decision to be made and not just always to Billy on the first carry. After his carry it'll be reassessed, again the structure/framework will be planned in that scenario but not where the ball goes.

People from the camp are on record saying it’s a set number of set plays and then play it as you see it.

From the games it looks like to two successive big carries from the forwards to get some momentum and then the playmakers have license to call what they see. It actually worked ok in the first test and the issue was England weren't clinical more than we didn't open up holes and create chances. Needs to get better and we've got to show some more edge in attack but it looked to function more than it did in the 6N.

From the analysis and observation its a number of structured plays with options (I'd guess 5 phases, based on limited detailed watch) - but the options then lead to different tasking for the next phase play....and when you multiply that out, you see the issues it causes, and players ending up either a bit confused and/or in the wrong position for what needs to happen; you also get -as noted before- outside backs tied into rucks, cos they have to be part of the numbers we need to get quick ball. Its bloody hard work, with detailed planning, and will take a long time for it to be comfortable. It reminds me of one of my sons years at school where they had a 56 sheet playing manual.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: People from the camp are on record saying it’s a set number of set plays and then play it as you see it.

From the games it looks like to two successive big carries from the forwards to get some momentum and then the playmakers have license to call what they see. It actually worked ok in the first test and the issue was England weren't clinical more than we didn't open up holes and create chances. Needs to get better and we've got to show some more edge in attack but it looked to function more than it did in the 6N.

From the analysis and observation its a number of structured plays with options (I'd guess 5 phases, based on limited detailed watch) - but the options then lead to different tasking for the next phase play....and when you multiply that out, you see the issues it causes, and players ending up either a bit confused and/or in the wrong position for what needs to happen; you also get -as noted before- outside backs tied into rucks, cos they have to be part of the numbers we need to get quick ball. Its bloody hard work, with detailed planning, and will take a long time for it to be comfortable. It reminds me of one of my sons years at school where they had a 56 sheet playing manual.

I very much doubt it goes to 5. And also, once a non-default option is chosen, that's when having Farrell and Smith come into play, as they're calling the next shape as quickly as possible, since the preplanned defaults no longer apply. You can't pick a run like Arundell's in that first phase, and pre-plan to it, since you don't know what's going to happen next, again, why we have Smith and Farrell to keep the structures going whilst in free play.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
From the games it looks like to two successive big carries from the forwards to get some momentum and then the playmakers have license to call what they see. It actually worked ok in the first test and the issue was England weren't clinical more than we didn't open up holes and create chances. Needs to get better and we've got to show some more edge in attack but it looked to function more than it did in the 6N.

From the analysis and observation its a number of structured plays with options (I'd guess 5 phases, based on limited detailed watch) - but the options then lead to different tasking for the next phase play....and when you multiply that out, you see the issues it causes, and players ending up either a bit confused and/or in the wrong position for what needs to happen; you also get -as noted before- outside backs tied into rucks, cos they have to be part of the numbers we need to get quick ball. Its bloody hard work, with detailed planning, and will take a long time for it to be comfortable. It reminds me of one of my sons years at school where they had a 56 sheet playing manual.

I very much doubt it goes to 5. And also, once a non-default option is chosen, that's when having Farrell and Smith come into play, as they're calling the next shape as quickly as possible, since the preplanned defaults no longer apply. You can't pick a run like Arundell's in that first phase, and pre-plan to it, since you don't know what's going to happen next, again, why we have Smith and Farrell to keep the structures going whilst in free play.

The people in camp who you’re disagreeing with said 4 or 5 phases.
Arundell might be the exception that proves the rule. When you’re three scores down with 10 to play against 14 men the game plan might just change slightly.
Listening to Rayer, and Bedford might play the loosest rugby in pro/semi-pro rugby, there’s always a pattern where x will lead to y which will lead to z or w until you get into serious multi-phase/broken field/line break territory. Nick Evans says exactly the same about Quins.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
From the games it looks like to two successive big carries from the forwards to get some momentum and then the playmakers have license to call what they see. It actually worked ok in the first test and the issue was England weren't clinical more than we didn't open up holes and create chances. Needs to get better and we've got to show some more edge in attack but it looked to function more than it did in the 6N.

From the analysis and observation its a number of structured plays with options (I'd guess 5 phases, based on limited detailed watch) - but the options then lead to different tasking for the next phase play....and when you multiply that out, you see the issues it causes, and players ending up either a bit confused and/or in the wrong position for what needs to happen; you also get -as noted before- outside backs tied into rucks, cos they have to be part of the numbers we need to get quick ball. Its bloody hard work, with detailed planning, and will take a long time for it to be comfortable. It reminds me of one of my sons years at school where they had a 56 sheet playing manual.

I very much doubt it goes to 5. And also, once a non-default option is chosen, that's when having Farrell and Smith come into play, as they're calling the next shape as quickly as possible, since the preplanned defaults no longer apply. You can't pick a run like Arundell's in that first phase, and pre-plan to it, since you don't know what's going to happen next, again, why we have Smith and Farrell to keep the structures going whilst in free play.

On the analysis shown they ran 4 planned phases and then kicked when it broke down. The complexity of lines and tasking meant it had to be pre-planned. The stuff you are drawing from is much later in the game, when it seemed to me we had changed how we were playing- whether that was deliberate or we'd just forgotten is something we'd both be guessing at.....as indeed we are on most of it, intent wise, as we don't know.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: From the analysis and observation its a number of structured plays with options (I'd guess 5 phases, based on limited detailed watch) - but the options then lead to different tasking for the next phase play....and when you multiply that out, you see the issues it causes, and players ending up either a bit confused and/or in the wrong position for what needs to happen; you also get -as noted before- outside backs tied into rucks, cos they have to be part of the numbers we need to get quick ball. Its bloody hard work, with detailed planning, and will take a long time for it to be comfortable. It reminds me of one of my sons years at school where they had a 56 sheet playing manual.

I very much doubt it goes to 5. And also, once a non-default option is chosen, that's when having Farrell and Smith come into play, as they're calling the next shape as quickly as possible, since the preplanned defaults no longer apply. You can't pick a run like Arundell's in that first phase, and pre-plan to it, since you don't know what's going to happen next, again, why we have Smith and Farrell to keep the structures going whilst in free play.

The people in camp who you’re disagreeing with said 4 or 5 phases.
Arundell might be the exception that proves the rule. When you’re three scores down with 10 to play against 14 men the game plan might just change slightly.
Listening to Rayer, and Bedford might play the loosest rugby in pro/semi-pro rugby, there’s always a pattern where x will lead to y which will lead to z or w until you get into serious multi-phase/broken field/line break territory. Nick Evans says exactly the same about Quins.

If there are 4 or 5 default phases then fair enough, but I suspect that might be more linked to Banquo's comment that after 4/5 phases with nothing coming, you go for the kick. it doesn't mean every choice in that 4 or 5 is prescribed, otherwise you wouldn't bother with Smith and Farrell, since nothing needs to be decided there and then.

The exception that proves the rule uses the old usage of the word prove, basically to test, so the exception that proves the rule, means it tests the rule and finds it wanting. That phrase is a personal bugbear of mine, since I know actual scientists that have tried to use it.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
I very much doubt it goes to 5. And also, once a non-default option is chosen, that's when having Farrell and Smith come into play, as they're calling the next shape as quickly as possible, since the preplanned defaults no longer apply. You can't pick a run like Arundell's in that first phase, and pre-plan to it, since you don't know what's going to happen next, again, why we have Smith and Farrell to keep the structures going whilst in free play.

The people in camp who you’re disagreeing with said 4 or 5 phases.
Arundell might be the exception that proves the rule. When you’re three scores down with 10 to play against 14 men the game plan might just change slightly.
Listening to Rayer, and Bedford might play the loosest rugby in pro/semi-pro rugby, there’s always a pattern where x will lead to y which will lead to z or w until you get into serious multi-phase/broken field/line break territory. Nick Evans says exactly the same about Quins.

If there are 4 or 5 default phases then fair enough, but I suspect that might be more linked to Banquo's comment that after 4/5 phases with nothing coming, you go for the kick. it doesn't mean every choice in that 4 or 5 is prescribed, otherwise you wouldn't bother with Smith and Farrell, since nothing needs to be decided there and then.

The exception that proves the rule uses the old usage of the word prove, basically to test, so the exception that proves the rule, means it tests the rule and finds it wanting. That phrase is a personal bugbear of mine, since I know actual scientists that have tried to use it.

I think you've just used an example exception to prove your own rule . My point was that there are at least 4 phases observed pre planned (and maybe more if it doesn't 'stall')- with variations within the pre planning, and even with players directing the traffic, doing that at pace is really challenging and breaks down...as every has noted, tbh. I'd suggest simplifying would help a lot with better option taking.
Sorry about your bugbear, must be very frustrating dealing with us plebs

If ever we needed a spreadsheet for phase marks…

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
I very much doubt it goes to 5. And also, once a non-default option is chosen, that's when having Farrell and Smith come into play, as they're calling the next shape as quickly as possible, since the preplanned defaults no longer apply. You can't pick a run like Arundell's in that first phase, and pre-plan to it, since you don't know what's going to happen next, again, why we have Smith and Farrell to keep the structures going whilst in free play.

The people in camp who you’re disagreeing with said 4 or 5 phases.
Arundell might be the exception that proves the rule. When you’re three scores down with 10 to play against 14 men the game plan might just change slightly.
Listening to Rayer, and Bedford might play the loosest rugby in pro/semi-pro rugby, there’s always a pattern where x will lead to y which will lead to z or w until you get into serious multi-phase/broken field/line break territory. Nick Evans says exactly the same about Quins.

If there are 4 or 5 default phases then fair enough, but I suspect that might be more linked to Banquo's comment that after 4/5 phases with nothing coming, you go for the kick. it doesn't mean every choice in that 4 or 5 is prescribed, otherwise you wouldn't bother with Smith and Farrell, since nothing needs to be decided there and then.

The exception that proves the rule uses the old usage of the word prove, basically to test, so the exception that proves the rule, means it tests the rule and finds it wanting. That phrase is a personal bugbear of mine, since I know actual scientists that have tried to use it.

Nope. There are 4 or 5 set phases, albeit when you get to phase 3/4/5 you might have to choose from a couple of options. It’s a reset if you’ve not broken the d or, if you have, play what you see.
As we’re being pedantic, what’s the difference between actual scientists and regular, run-of-the-mill scientists?

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: People from the camp are on record saying it’s a set number of set plays and then play it as you see it.

From the games it looks like to two successive big carries from the forwards to get some momentum and then the playmakers have license to call what they see. It actually worked ok in the first test and the issue was England weren't clinical more than we didn't open up holes and create chances. Needs to get better and we've got to show some more edge in attack but it looked to function more than it did in the 6N.

From the analysis and observation its a number of structured plays with options (I'd guess 5 phases, based on limited detailed watch) - but the options then lead to different tasking for the next phase play....and when you multiply that out, you see the issues it causes, and players ending up either a bit confused and/or in the wrong position for what needs to happen; you also get -as noted before- outside backs tied into rucks, cos they have to be part of the numbers we need to get quick ball. Its bloody hard work, with detailed planning, and will take a long time for it to be comfortable. It reminds me of one of my sons years at school where they had a 56 sheet playing manual.

It seems to me that Eddie is stressing Smith to get him to play like…

Ford.

Ffs.

It’s so strange. We drop our best fly half just when we start playing a brand of rugby that he is the best in the world at organizing.

The way Smith has developed for Harlequins means he does not need changing. Pick him for what he is or don't pick him. We are back at square one. Jones should just pick the best FH and let him play. If Smith's game does not suit the coaching plan (if there is one) pick someone who does - even if it is Farrell.

I can’t believe there’s not a (limited) menu of options from all strike plays. I don’t see why you wouldn’t give your playmakers a degree of autonomy, it can still be pretty prescribed off the back of whatever option is taken. Thinking back to the Autumn when we ran the same shape off Slade against the Boks 3 times and Slade made 3 different choices at the line- long pass to Steward, short pop to Marchant, inside ball to May.

Timbo wrote:I can’t believe there’s not a (limited) menu of options from all strike plays. I don’t see why you wouldn’t give your playmakers a degree of autonomy, it can still be pretty prescribed off the back of whatever option is taken. Thinking back to the Autumn when we ran the same shape off Slade against the Boks 3 times and Slade made 3 different choices at the line- long pass to Steward, short pop to Marchant, inside ball to May.

Of course there are- the point is - for me anyway- that there it looks like to me, that there are several phases planned out in serial, with options in each. Which even with limited options per phase, has a multiplier effect on what a player has to 'remember' until it becomes unconcious competence, which then hinders their ability to make decisions quickly. But this is an observation plus a load of assumptions , based on the out turn- running out of numbers, players in the wrong place, the best decision being misssed; we both looked at that analysis clip (well a clip with a load of arrows on it) and saw the amount of planning that went into it, for no return.

Not sure anyone is saying that it’s as simple as a Colts playbook of scissor 1 then miss 2 then your dynamite move named after an action hero that has never come off even in unopposed run throughs. To my mind a set play is one that can have two or three choices for a player to make but it’s still a set play that has been prescribed within a run of set plays.
As I said above, Rayer talks about x then y and then z or w dependent on how x and y went. The players have some autonomy but within a set structure. A bit like a flow chart, I suppose.
To my mind, there is a difference between that and complete autonomy to play what is in front of you. Given it’s RR there’s a good chance we’re all just arguing over what constitutes set play and what is play what’s in front of you whilst all pretty much agreeing how the England attack patterns are set up.
To my mind, going back to what those in camp have said, Jones has 4/5 set plays - with player autonomy within the options of those set plays towards the end of the sequence - and then, if there’s a line break or suchlike, make it up on the hoof.
Tbh, it blows my mind that this has been deemed a radical, allcourt gane.

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I can’t believe there’s not a (limited) menu of options from all strike plays. I don’t see why you wouldn’t give your playmakers a degree of autonomy, it can still be pretty prescribed off the back of whatever option is taken. Thinking back to the Autumn when we ran the same shape off Slade against the Boks 3 times and Slade made 3 different choices at the line- long pass to Steward, short pop to Marchant, inside ball to May.

Of course there are- the point is - for me anyway- that there it looks like to me, that there are several phases planned out in serial, with options in each. Which even with limited options per phase, has a multiplier effect on what a player has to 'remember' until it becomes unconcious competence, which then hinders their ability to make decisions quickly. But this is an observation plus a load of assumptions , based on the out turn- running out of numbers, players in the wrong place, the best decision being misssed; we both looked at that analysis clip (well a clip with a load of arrows on it) and saw the amount of planning that went into it, for no return.

Yes, I agree with all those conclusions. My hope is that once the patterns and shape have baked in a bit more we’ll see more individuality and plays called based on the pictures the defence is showing. Whether Jones is willing to cede enough control to allow that, or we have enough of the type of players to thrive in those conditions I’m not sure.

Mellsblue wrote:Not sure anyone is saying that it’s as simple as a Colts playbook of scissor 1 then miss 2 then your dynamite move named after an action hero that has never come off even in unopposed run throughs. To my mind a set play is one that can have two or three choices for a player to make but it’s still a set play that has been prescribed within a run of set plays.
As I said above, Rayer talks about x then y and then z or w dependent on how x and y went. The players have some autonomy but within a set structure. A bit like a flow chart, I suppose.
To my mind, there is a difference between that and complete autonomy to play what is in front of you. Given it’s RR there’s a good chance we’re all just arguing over what constitutes set play and what is play what’s in front of you whilst all pretty much agreeing how the England attack patterns are set up.
To my mind, going back to what those in camp have said, Jones has 4/5 set plays - with player autonomy within the options of those set plays towards the end of the sequence - and then, if there’s a line break or suchlike, make it up on the hoof.
Tbh, it blows my mind that this has been deemed a radical, allcourt gane.

Yeah, it seems like everyone is broadly saying the same thing

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Not sure anyone is saying that it’s as simple as a Colts playbook of scissor 1 then miss 2 then your dynamite move named after an action hero that has never come off even in unopposed run throughs. To my mind a set play is one that can have two or three choices for a player to make but it’s still a set play that has been prescribed within a run of set plays.
As I said above, Rayer talks about x then y and then z or w dependent on how x and y went. The players have some autonomy but within a set structure. A bit like a flow chart, I suppose.
To my mind, there is a difference between that and complete autonomy to play what is in front of you. Given it’s RR there’s a good chance we’re all just arguing over what constitutes set play and what is play what’s in front of you whilst all pretty much agreeing how the England attack patterns are set up.
To my mind, going back to what those in camp have said, Jones has 4/5 set plays - with player autonomy within the options of those set plays towards the end of the sequence - and then, if there’s a line break or suchlike, make it up on the hoof.
Tbh, it blows my mind that this has been deemed a radical, allcourt gane.

Yeah, it seem like everyone is broadly saying the same thing

God bless the internet and on which note…

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I can’t believe there’s not a (limited) menu of options from all strike plays. I don’t see why you wouldn’t give your playmakers a degree of autonomy, it can still be pretty prescribed off the back of whatever option is taken. Thinking back to the Autumn when we ran the same shape off Slade against the Boks 3 times and Slade made 3 different choices at the line- long pass to Steward, short pop to Marchant, inside ball to May.

Of course there are- the point is - for me anyway- that there it looks like to me, that there are several phases planned out in serial, with options in each. Which even with limited options per phase, has a multiplier effect on what a player has to 'remember' until it becomes unconcious competence, which then hinders their ability to make decisions quickly. But this is an observation plus a load of assumptions , based on the out turn- running out of numbers, players in the wrong place, the best decision being misssed; we both looked at that analysis clip (well a clip with a load of arrows on it) and saw the amount of planning that went into it, for no return.

Yes, I agree with all those conclusions. My hope is that once the patterns and shape have baked in a bit more we’ll see more individuality and plays called based on the pictures the defence is showing. Whether Jones is willing to cede enough control to allow that, or we have enough of the type of players to thrive in those conditions I’m not sure.

Totally agree with your last sentence and did type something similar but deleted as I didn’t want it to become a pro Jones v anti Jones thing.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I can’t believe there’s not a (limited) menu of options from all strike plays. I don’t see why you wouldn’t give your playmakers a degree of autonomy, it can still be pretty prescribed off the back of whatever option is taken. Thinking back to the Autumn when we ran the same shape off Slade against the Boks 3 times and Slade made 3 different choices at the line- long pass to Steward, short pop to Marchant, inside ball to May.

Of course there are- the point is - for me anyway- that there it looks like to me, that there are several phases planned out in serial, with options in each. Which even with limited options per phase, has a multiplier effect on what a player has to 'remember' until it becomes unconcious competence, which then hinders their ability to make decisions quickly. But this is an observation plus a load of assumptions , based on the out turn- running out of numbers, players in the wrong place, the best decision being misssed; we both looked at that analysis clip (well a clip with a load of arrows on it) and saw the amount of planning that went into it, for no return.

Yes, I agree with all those conclusions. My hope is that once the patterns and shape have baked in a bit more we’ll see more individuality and plays called based on the pictures the defence is showing. Whether Jones is willing to cede enough control to allow that, or we have enough of the type of players to thrive in those conditions I’m not sure.

Yes, in sort of talking it through, it may be that once players are in competent mode, they will make better decisions and it will all look better; then we have to work on finishing

My worry is that I don't think we have the players to this consistently well, esp under pressure- to work really well, it all has to happen closer to the tackle line and with quick accurate handling; tbh, I still think sides could look to what Dwyer did, albeit maybe either straight off first phase, or after a couple of defence disruptive later plays. But as above we dont have enough players with those (innate/coached) abilities at high level- Ford has this ability (as Mells pointed out earlier). That said, Dwyer took non rugby players or hidden gems and coached them intensively; world's moved on tho.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/62091854

eh? New team? New strategy maybe....

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Not sure anyone is saying that it’s as simple as a Colts playbook of scissor 1 then miss 2 then your dynamite move named after an action hero that has never come off even in unopposed run throughs. To my mind a set play is one that can have two or three choices for a player to make but it’s still a set play that has been prescribed within a run of set plays.
As I said above, Rayer talks about x then y and then z or w dependent on how x and y went. The players have some autonomy but within a set structure. A bit like a flow chart, I suppose.
To my mind, there is a difference between that and complete autonomy to play what is in front of you. Given it’s RR there’s a good chance we’re all just arguing over what constitutes set play and what is play what’s in front of you whilst all pretty much agreeing how the England attack patterns are set up.
To my mind, going back to what those in camp have said, Jones has 4/5 set plays - with player autonomy within the options of those set plays towards the end of the sequence - and then, if there’s a line break or suchlike, make it up on the hoof.
Tbh, it blows my mind that this has been deemed a radical, allcourt gane.

Yeah, it seems like everyone is broadly saying the same thing

By the way, are any teams not doing this? I just assume that all pro rugby is heavily planned. How much less complex was Australia's attack? (For those who monitor these things)

A comment in the DT this morning suggests that Itoje and Lawes are absolutely knackered and way off top effectiveness. If that is so, it could explain a lot.