How will England attack in the 6N?

[Banquo]

Prong vs Pod I can understand being a bit annoying, but which single would should he use to easily and non-jargonly describe the nomads?

Forward .

Seriously, do the players say, oh Dan Cole has gone off, who is the new nomad?

[Raggs]

Prong vs Pod I can understand being a bit annoying, but which single would should he use to easily and non-jargonly describe the nomads?

Forward

So the forward should carry it, the other forward who's supposed to be with him, should support him, and the other 2 forwards a bit further away, who are where they are supposed to be, one supporting the other, can also potentially support if needed, but hopefully one of the other forwards, who's not supposed to be on his own on either edge, but can wander around as they are needed, but not together, can support them instead.

I'd rather just add a couple of words to the vocab .

[Banquo]

Prong vs Pod I can understand being a bit annoying, but which single would should he use to easily and non-jargonly describe the nomads?

Forward

So the forward should carry it, the other forward who's supposed to be with him, should support him, and the other 2 forwards a bit further away, who are where they are supposed to be, one supporting the other, can also potentially support if needed, but hopefully one of the other forwards, who's not supposed to be on his own on either edge, but can wander around as they are needed, but not together, can support them instead.

I'd rather just add a couple of words to the vocab .

as I said, each to their own. Pre-programmed 'roles' is part of the reason we struggle.

[Raggs]

Prong vs Pod I can understand being a bit annoying, but which single would should he use to easily and non-jargonly describe the nomads?

Forward .

Seriously, do the players say, oh Dan Cole has gone off, who is the new nomad?

Nomad, probably not, and it's probably not a fixed role, but one that'll change with who's on their feet and who isn't etc. Almost certainly there'll be preferences as to who should be in which pod, but I'd be fairly sure they do have a word to describe the guy not involved in a fixed pod.

[Banquo]

Prong vs Pod I can understand being a bit annoying, but which single would should he use to easily and non-jargonly describe the nomads?

Forward .

Seriously, do the players say, oh Dan Cole has gone off, who is the new nomad?

Nomad, probably not, and it's probably not a fixed role, but one that'll change with who's on their feet and who isn't etc. Almost certainly there'll be preferences as to who should be in which pod, but I'd be fairly sure they do have a word to describe the guy not involved in a fixed pod.

yes, support.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

each to their own. Its all pretty straightforward stuff, so I don't see the need for inventing jargon. Reminds me of forwards coaches I used to be on courses with who used to make a big mystery of all the 'dark arts', yet hadn't really got a clue about what happened in the game as a whole.

Reminds me of backs coaches who would want to run something akin to a red arrows display for a move and achieve sweet FA from it, I have 2 now under me that come under that criteria.

ha, fair enough, but I'd have to say of the coaches who were forwards I met on senior courses, very few knew anything about back play or anything much outside the set piece; I'd guess that MUST have changed now.

As per Mikey's comment, I do wonder whether this pre-programmed piece is taking away from actual playing the game and what's in front of you; over analysis leading to paralysis or summat.

PS You need to get a grip on them mate, they are your coaches! I always had to reign the back divisions I look after in- wanted to run endless unopposed moves that had no purpose at all other than looking quite flash, and running them unopposed is pretty pointless anyway; so just ask what they are trying to achieve, and that should do the job!

I think it has changed a bit Banquo but only with coaches who want to do broaden their knowledge. Same applies to backs coaches who want to know how the forwards work. The single biggest issue is with coaches coaching how they got coached years back by someone coaching using the 1962 RFU coaching manual.
I have been on their case and they have changed their ways tbh. Never seen the point of unopposed run throughs, even in a handling drill of lines of 4 or 5 I want 2 or 3 "defenders" in front of them to give them something to think about. Something only becomes a skill when its done under pressure.
The whole pre programmed thing is the single biggest difference imo between us and the AB's. They have their tried and trusted 2-4-2 though that is changing a bit here and their(generally in a game on the hoof depending on the circumstances) but they always have more than one option it seems to pass to in their "set-ups". Now none of the options are wrong just some may be a better choice than others. It is their ability to pick the right one under pressure which is the difference between them and everyone else. The only other side who have come close to that for any length of time have been the Aussies at different times over the years. Would the reason for this be the fact that Aussie and AB backs are happy finding themselves at first reciever and any other position in a backline where we want 10 there all the time calling the shots at first receiver?

[Banquo]

Reminds me of backs coaches who would want to run something akin to a red arrows display for a move and achieve sweet FA from it, I have 2 now under me that come under that criteria.

ha, fair enough, but I'd have to say of the coaches who were forwards I met on senior courses, very few knew anything about back play or anything much outside the set piece; I'd guess that MUST have changed now.

As per Mikey's comment, I do wonder whether this pre-programmed piece is taking away from actual playing the game and what's in front of you; over analysis leading to paralysis or summat.

PS You need to get a grip on them mate, they are your coaches! I always had to reign the back divisions I look after in- wanted to run endless unopposed moves that had no purpose at all other than looking quite flash, and running them unopposed is pretty pointless anyway; so just ask what they are trying to achieve, and that should do the job!

I think it has changed a bit Banquo but only with coaches who want to do broaden their knowledge. Same applies to backs coaches who want to know how the forwards work. The single biggest issue is with coaches coaching how they got coached years back by someone coaching using the 1962 RFU coaching manual.
I have been on their case and they have changed their ways tbh. Never seen the point of unopposed run throughs, even in a handling drill of lines of 4 or 5 I want 2 or 3 "defenders" in front of them to give them something to think about. Something only becomes a skill when its done under pressure.
The whole pre programmed thing is the single biggest difference imo between us and the AB's. They have their tried and trusted 2-4-2 though that is changing a bit here and their(generally in a game on the hoof depending on the circumstances) but they always have more than one option it seems to pass to in their "set-ups". Now none of the options are wrong just some may be a better choice than others. It is their ability to pick the right one under pressure which is the difference between them and everyone else. The only other side who have come close to that for any length of time have been the Aussies at different times over the years. Would the reason for this be the fact that Aussie and AB backs are happy finding themselves at first reciever and any other position in a backline where we want 10 there all the time calling the shots at first receiver?

Yep- I wanted to progress as a coach, so I took modules and assessment exercises that broadened my knowledge, so I could coach set piece, scrum wheeling (when it was allowed), hooker throwing in, etc etc. Other coaches didn't care, and I saw some of them become head coaches of senior sides without any interest in how to coach areas outside their expertise, bit scary. I agree on the AB's and how they coach and develop coaches.

[Mellsblue]

each to their own. Its all pretty straightforward stuff, so I don't see the need for inventing jargon. Reminds me of forwards coaches I used to be on courses with who used to make a big mystery of all the 'dark arts', yet hadn't really got a clue about what happened in the game as a whole.

Reminds me of backs coaches who would want to run something akin to a red arrows display for a move and achieve sweet FA from it, I have 2 now under me that come under that criteria.

ha, fair enough, but I'd have to say of the coaches who were forwards I met on senior courses, very few knew anything about back play or anything much outside the set piece; I'd guess that MUST have changed now.

As per Mikey's comment, I do wonder whether this pre-programmed piece is taking away from actual playing the game and what's in front of you; over analysis leading to paralysis or summat.

PS You need to get a grip on them mate, they are your coaches! I always had to reign the back divisions I look after in- wanted to run endless unopposed moves that had no purpose at all other than looking quite flash, and running them unopposed is pretty pointless anyway; so just ask what they are trying to achieve, and that should do the job!

I devised a overly elaborate backs move at my club to take advantage of my, self proclaimed, devastatingly long and accurate right hand miss-pass. I was initially named Top Gun as it looked, on paper and in training, amazing. It soon became known as Top Gear as, in a match situation where the opportunity dared to thwart it, it always went horribly wrong.

[Digby]

Having perhaps read the above or more importantly the 1014 articles, and still more importantly having watched England would you fan out in defence Vs England, or smash the breakdown? Probably both but with more emphasis on looking to pile in than Vs most

Smash the breakdown, definitely. It's where the AP clubs have struggled in the ERC - some rude and unsporting Celt goes competing for the ball and upsets our delicate plans.

Puja

Neither Scotland nor France needed to smash the breakdown it turns out to spoil our attack. Ireland is a maybe, they have the pack to do so, but it wouldn't sit well alongside the Farrell defence regime, a plan so simple even Lawes can extole its virtues