Mikey Brown wrote:Is it time for me to post a semi-believable team that also has a 6/2 bench featuring Shields and no Robson/scrumhalf? Maybe Te'o at 13 for Slade? Too much? Too early?
Wait until 10:45 on Thursday, and you'll have me crying at my desk…
also, throw in a backrow of Shields (6) - Wilson (7) - Billy, and you might have me throwing my laptop away
Mikey Brown wrote:Is it time for me to post a semi-believable team that also has a 6/2 bench featuring Shields and no Robson/scrumhalf? Maybe Te'o at 13 for Slade? Too much? Too early?
Stom wrote:It matches up to what Digby said elsewhere...that Rugby is becoming less of an instinctive game and more about league style controlled games. Coaches want to remove the potential for "mistakes" by setting up as much structure as possible. And that means we get the situation where Farrell is preferred to Ford, because he does not deviate from the plan.
And it makes rugby more boring.
Football has been through that. And it now has a number of top teams whose gameplan is a mix of structure and unstructured play.
Stom wrote:It matches up to what Digby said elsewhere...that Rugby is becoming less of an instinctive game and more about league style controlled games. Coaches want to remove the potential for "mistakes" by setting up as much structure as possible. And that means we get the situation where Farrell is preferred to Ford, because he does not deviate from the plan.
And it makes rugby more boring.
Football has been through that. And it now has a number of top teams whose gameplan is a mix of structure and unstructured play.
Football is much less structured to begin with.
There is that, but there was definitely a trend in the last decade to create highly structured football teams. But Zidane's multiple CL wins, coupled with the concentration of talent has meant the reintroduction of unstructured forward play.
Stom wrote:It matches up to what Digby said elsewhere...that Rugby is becoming less of an instinctive game and more about league style controlled games. Coaches want to remove the potential for "mistakes" by setting up as much structure as possible. And that means we get the situation where Farrell is preferred to Ford, because he does not deviate from the plan.
And it makes rugby more boring.
Football has been through that. And it now has a number of top teams whose gameplan is a mix of structure and unstructured play.
Football is much less structured to begin with.
There is that, but there was definitely a trend in the last decade to create highly structured football teams. But Zidane's multiple CL wins, coupled with the concentration of talent has meant the reintroduction of unstructured forward play.
Be interesting if someone did try and 'change' Unions structures; Dwyer sort of had a go with his flat midfield and back three playing off them, but that got buried in multiphase rugby. I did wonder if someone would have a go at super rucks with three or four binding and driving a couple of yards beyond the ball, and seeing if uber fast ball in one or two phases would make a difference.
Anyone got any ideas for 'de-structuring' the game, other than actually applying the laws to ensure more forwards are tied in? Simply removing players doesnt really work (see League).
Banquo wrote:
Football is much less structured to begin with.
There is that, but there was definitely a trend in the last decade to create highly structured football teams. But Zidane's multiple CL wins, coupled with the concentration of talent has meant the reintroduction of unstructured forward play.
Be interesting if someone did try and 'change' Unions structures; Dwyer sort of had a go with his flat midfield and back three playing off them, but that got buried in multiphase rugby. I did wonder if someone would have a go at super rucks with three or four binding and driving a couple of yards beyond the ball, and seeing if uber fast ball in one or two phases would make a difference.
Anyone got any ideas for 'de-structuring' the game, other than actually applying the laws to ensure more forwards are tied in? Simply removing players doesnt really work (see League).
Well, you kind of excluded the point...the rules. They're there for a reason, we should be using them.
Stom wrote:
There is that, but there was definitely a trend in the last decade to create highly structured football teams. But Zidane's multiple CL wins, coupled with the concentration of talent has meant the reintroduction of unstructured forward play.
Be interesting if someone did try and 'change' Unions structures; Dwyer sort of had a go with his flat midfield and back three playing off them, but that got buried in multiphase rugby. I did wonder if someone would have a go at super rucks with three or four binding and driving a couple of yards beyond the ball, and seeing if uber fast ball in one or two phases would make a difference.
Anyone got any ideas for 'de-structuring' the game, other than actually applying the laws to ensure more forwards are tied in? Simply removing players doesnt really work (see League).
Well, you kind of excluded the point...the rules. They're there for a reason, we should be using them.
Laws, and ok, kill the thread then
I was just looking if anyone had thought of different ways of playing, as it might be interesting.............
There can't be any major play variations left. 1st phase plays still have their place and innovation on a micro-scale has to be welcomed. It's thrust and counter-thrust as ever. Maybe, an organised turnover of ideas-men in the coaching set-up is the way to go. Arguably, Jones has managed that, to an extent, accidentally or not.
I dunno. Townsend has been pretty innovative recently?
Have you seen this new ploy to maul it on open play? You form all the forwards together in a huddle, dragging in their opposite numbers to create space out wide, and then either give away a pen for offside or fumble it w forwards as they all reach for the same pass.
We've all so experimented with extended periods of refusing to take contact, either in attack or defence. It's had mixed results.
Stom wrote:It matches up to what Digby said elsewhere...that Rugby is becoming less of an instinctive game and more about league style controlled games. Coaches want to remove the potential for "mistakes" by setting up as much structure as possible. And that means we get the situation where Farrell is preferred to Ford, because he does not deviate from the plan.
And it makes rugby more boring.
Football has been through that. And it now has a number of top teams whose gameplan is a mix of structure and unstructured play.
Football is much less structured to begin with.
There is that, but there was definitely a trend in the last decade to create highly structured football teams. But Zidane's multiple CL wins, coupled with the concentration of talent has meant the reintroduction of unstructured forward play.
The number of games of football I've seen in the last decade, as in whole game rather than whilst channel hopping, is zero. The only thought I had about being in the world cup semi final was it made the roads very easy for driving. If I don't have much time for rugby I have no time for football
Stom wrote:It matches up to what Digby said elsewhere...that Rugby is becoming less of an instinctive game and more about league style controlled games. Coaches want to remove the potential for "mistakes" by setting up as much structure as possible. And that means we get the situation where Farrell is preferred to Ford, because he does not deviate from the plan.
And it makes rugby more boring.
Football has been through that. And it now has a number of top teams whose gameplan is a mix of structure and unstructured play.
Depends on the coach. Gatand and Edwards were the classic stepford wives of the coaching world. Schmidt is a an updated version of it. The English domestic game seems riddled with robot coaches, hence the chronic lack of recognition for out and out modern loose forwards. France seems to have run out of room on the coaching hard drive all together. That's more a case of dull coaching rather than a limitation of the modern game.
Stom wrote:It matches up to what Digby said elsewhere...that Rugby is becoming less of an instinctive game and more about league style controlled games. Coaches want to remove the potential for "mistakes" by setting up as much structure as possible. And that means we get the situation where Farrell is preferred to Ford, because he does not deviate from the plan.
And it makes rugby more boring.
Football has been through that. And it now has a number of top teams whose gameplan is a mix of structure and unstructured play.
Depends on the coach. Gatand and Edwards were the classic stepford wives of the coaching world. Schmidt is a an updated version of it. The English domestic game seems riddled with robot coaches, hence the chronic lack of recognition for out and out modern loose forwards. France seems to have run out of room on the coaching hard drive all together. That's more a case of dull coaching rather than a limitation of the modern game.
England's defense coach was seen holding a clipboard with 23 names on it at England training today amid speculation of England's 23 to face Wales. Some of the names were obvious selections, but there were a couple of surprise picks.
The names were:
Ellis Genge
Jamie George
Kyle Sinckler
Ben Moon
Luke Cowan-Dickie
Harry Williams
Courtney Lawes
George Kruis
Maro Itoje
Mark Wilson
Tom Curry
Billy Vunipola
Jack Clifford
Ben Youngs
Dan Robson
Owen Farrell
George Ford
Manu Tuilagi
Henry Slade
Jonny May
Joe Cokanasiga
Jack Nowell
Elliot Daly
Question marks were also seen by the names of Itoje - who was not suspected back for the Wales game - Nowell, and Dan Robson, the scum half who made his debut against France. No other names were seen to suggest who would replace these 3 players if they were not involved.
England's defense coach was seen holding a clipboard with 23 names on it at England training today amid speculation of England's 23 to face Wales. Some of the names were obvious selections, but there were a couple of surprise picks.
The names were:
Ellis Genge
Jamie George
Kyle Sinckler
Ben Moon
Luke Cowan-Dickie
Harry Williams
Courtney Lawes
George Kruis
Maro Itoje
Mark Wilson
Tom Curry
Billy Vunipola
Jack Clifford
Ben Youngs
Dan Robson
Owen Farrell
George Ford
Manu Tuilagi
Henry Slade
Jonny May
Joe Cokanasiga
Jack Nowell
Elliot Daly
Question marks were also seen by the names of Itoje - who was not suspected back for the Wales game - Nowell, and Dan Robson, the scum half who made his debut against France. No other names were seen to suggest who would replace these 3 players if they were not involved.
Uh, oh. Remember the discussions we had when Neville addressed the squad under Lancaster? Well, hold on to your hats. John Terry addressed the squad today......
Right boys. Just heard a rumour via rugby inside line.
Paraphrasing here but the word on the street (according to a John Mitchell clipboard) is that Dan Robson will be replaced by non-specialist-scrum-half Brad Shields (if fit) in a roving, 9th forward capacity. If Shields isn't fit, the role may be filled by back-cum-9th-forward Jack Nowell, with Joe Cokanasiga coming into the side on the wing.
Forwards
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs)
Tom Curry (Sale Sharks)
Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers)
Jamie George (Saracens)
Nathan Hughes (Wasps)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)
Ben Moon (Exeter Chiefs)
Brad Shields (Wasps)
Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs)
Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons)
Backs
Joe Cokanasiga (Bath Rugby)
Elliot Daly (Wasps)
Owen Farrell (Saracens) captain
George Ford (Leicester Tigers)
Jonny May (Leicester Tigers)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs)
Dan Robson (Wasps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs)
Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors)
Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)
I like the idea of Terry talking to them today. There aren’t many who have asmuch experience playing in consistently hostile and vitriolic environments, both against team and personally. His experience in such would be pretty high. He’s also captained to significant success.