RugbyRebels

Well the 1014 are running a live show during the games, where they'll be watching, and have full access to all stats live, so will be doing some analysis in real time. Think I may well be watching and listening to them rather than the normal 6N pundits. At the very least, I'll see how it goes for the first two, then decide if it's for me for the England game.

Mikey Brown wrote:I briefly found this flurry of chat/analysis about pods and attacking formations quite interesting buts it’s worn on me already.

I really hope our players aren’t so tied in to who stands behind who in each particular phase that they can’t function as soon as one element is changed.

Thankfully I think endless discussion of 1-3-3-1 v 1-2-2-2-1 etc. will be way, way beyond the generic pundit analysis we’ll be treated to this 6 nations.

That is my worry too, as articulated by the question what happens if fnf aren't telling everyone what to do.

Mikey Brown wrote:I briefly found this flurry of chat/analysis about pods and attacking formations quite interesting buts it’s worn on me already.

I really hope our players aren’t so tied in to who stands behind who in each particular phase that they can’t function as soon as one element is changed.

Thankfully I think endless discussion of 1-3-3-1 v 1-2-2-2-1 etc. will be way, way beyond the generic pundit analysis we’ll be treated to this 6 nations.

Justice for the 242 in not even picking up a mention!

There is a school of though players are too programmed these days, but it was always the case sides needed structure they could gravitate toward, it's just the structures are more detailed now, but standing in a flat line with whatever angle/depth is itself a structure. And the idea isn't the players have to stand in the exact same position, but depending on the calls from 8, 9, 10 and 12 they support certain areas and they move toward whatever the best area is for them given their role and where they are, and where they are Vs others.

I do think there are times, especially turnover ball, that sides can be too bust getting into their shape to then attack rather than just going for it. But I don't see how they can play at any pace without the structures

Banquo wrote:

I really would like us to demand great all round skills, whilst recognising there will be specific strengths and needs when looking at your 12/13 combo in the context of how you want to play in attack and defence; defence is non-negotiable, which means having quick feet, getting into good positions, great communication and decision making, and the ability to defend in different systems. I think centres have to offer a running threat, and have to have excellent and accurate short passing ability. Basics like contact work are a given. The ability to deliver long flat passes is ideal, and both need a semblance of a kicking game. Not much to ask surely .

So, say, Eastmond and Joseph, for instance.

But coaches don't like that, especially outside Ford as "they're too small!!!"

BTW, all this talk of how we will attack and France, well, if they have a plan it's well hidden...

Against Scotland, just give them the ball.

Mikey Brown wrote:I briefly found this flurry of chat/analysis about pods and attacking formations quite interesting buts it’s worn on me already.

I really hope our players aren’t so tied in to who stands behind who in each particular phase that they can’t function as soon as one element is changed.

Thankfully I think endless discussion of 1-3-3-1 v 1-2-2-2-1 etc. will be way, way beyond the generic pundit analysis we’ll be treated to this 6 nations.

I watch rugby a lot and i don't understand what 1 3 3 1, or which ever numbers are picked, really means. I can guess. I also don't get why it has to be predefined.

JellyHead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I briefly found this flurry of chat/analysis about pods and attacking formations quite interesting buts it’s worn on me already.

I really hope our players aren’t so tied in to who stands behind who in each particular phase that they can’t function as soon as one element is changed.

Thankfully I think endless discussion of 1-3-3-1 v 1-2-2-2-1 etc. will be way, way beyond the generic pundit analysis we’ll be treated to this 6 nations.

I watch rugby a lot and i don't understand what 1 3 3 1, or which ever numbers are picked, really means. I can guess. I also don't get why it has to be predefined.

By giving structure, it gives the players less to do. And less responsibility. Which is the same across most sports now and one reason I, for one, watch less.

I always said I didn't like US sports because the responsibility lay with 1 player or the coach, and everyone else just ran set plays. I don't really like how British sports are heading that way too.

It's the setup of the pack across the field. It's pre-defined to give the teams a structure to work within, so that they can know their place in any given phase. Different structures have different rigidity, and players obviously have to make calls as to which options to take (different structures offer different numbers of options).

Without a structure to work within, players either mill around everywhere, and it's an uncoordinated mess, or typically the 9 and 10 have to organise everyone else on the fly, and that just slows them down since they should be doing other things instead, rather than spending time telling people where to stand.

JellyHead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I briefly found this flurry of chat/analysis about pods and attacking formations quite interesting buts it’s worn on me already.

I really hope our players aren’t so tied in to who stands behind who in each particular phase that they can’t function as soon as one element is changed.

Thankfully I think endless discussion of 1-3-3-1 v 1-2-2-2-1 etc. will be way, way beyond the generic pundit analysis we’ll be treated to this 6 nations.

I watch rugby a lot and i don't understand what 1 3 3 1, or which ever numbers are picked, really means. I can guess. I also don't get why it has to be predefined.

The formation of the 1 player on either end of the line is without too much surprise just 1 forward stood at either end, though sometimes it's 2 as the system is actually 2-4-2 (which is the system Bath use) and in this the 4 in the middle tend to be the 2 locks and 2 of the front row, i.e. basically faster players go wider, partly as they're quicker to get wide and give the width, and partly they're faster where the space might result.

The split of the 3 man pods can be done in two ways, 3 players stood in a mini line, or 3 players stood in a mini triangle. In the triangle pod the best handler should be at the front of the pod. Whether in a line or triangle the pod(s) will have backs ready to take the ball out of the back of a pod if they want

The main idea is to create a structure that gives width to a team attack, if you leave players free to follow and support play in an ad-hoc fashion then they can more easily get far too tight. And then how the pods actually have designed plays now tends to be about combating the blitz defence

Lots of nice photos of Wales using the 3 pod system out of a 1331 in this piece of analysis from the Scotland game yesterday

http://the1014.com/wales-v-scotland-rev ... et-effect/

Hooray!

Digby wrote:Lots of nice photos of Wales using the 3 pod system out of a 1331 in this piece of analysis from the Scotland game yesterday

http://the1014.com/wales-v-scotland-rev ... et-effect/

They found enough structure in that match to assess? I'm impressed!

There was a lot of structure in the game though. Wales were helped in this by Scotland being a bit powderpuff in the tight, and Scotland refusing to kick in a fashion they could contest via the Scots 9 & 10

Rugby being sponsored by McDonalds on ITV, dear god. I suppose money is money, but if we can't have money from booze companies or tobacco why can we have money from a firm that sells excrement designed to make fat people with cancer?

Anyone expecting anything different in Edinburgh to what we saw Vs Wales?

I'm assuming we'll see pretty the exact same thing. The 2 man pods, the pick and go to drag in defenders, and plenty of kicking again. The possible questions would be about support at the breakdown, and thus who's getting picked at 2, 3, 6 and 7, the errors in the breakdown and the coughing up of daft penalties if repeated could see Eddie in still worse mood post game than when he went at the 5-Live reporter in such amusing fashion.

I've been no fan of the Ford/Farrell pairing at 10/12 but I have to concede that they are starting to look comfortable occasionally in off-the-cuff plays. Against Wales that had some limited effect on the game and I think there is hope, especially if Farrell continues to get beyond his tackler.

Digby wrote:Anyone expecting anything different in Edinburgh to what we saw Vs Wales?

I'm assuming we'll see pretty the exact same thing. The 2 man pods, the pick and go to drag in defenders, and plenty of kicking again. The possible questions would be about support at the breakdown, and thus who's getting picked at 2, 3, 6 and 7, the errors in the breakdown and the coughing up of daft penalties if repeated could see Eddie in still worse mood post game than when he went at the 5-Live reporter in such amusing fashion.

Not sure who would be doing the picking and going, that seemed to be mostly Simmonds, certainly the effective ones.

That was a real pop at the 5-liver, must have been some history there.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Anyone expecting anything different in Edinburgh to what we saw Vs Wales?

I'm assuming we'll see pretty the exact same thing. The 2 man pods, the pick and go to drag in defenders, and plenty of kicking again. The possible questions would be about support at the breakdown, and thus who's getting picked at 2, 3, 6 and 7, the errors in the breakdown and the coughing up of daft penalties if repeated could see Eddie in still worse mood post game than when he went at the 5-Live reporter in such amusing fashion.

Not sure who would be doing the picking and going, that seemed to be mostly Simmonds, certainly the effective ones.

That was a real pop at the 5-liver, must have been some history there.

I don't think England mind who does the pick plays,though the worst at them are Hartley and Cole, but when we run them it's multliple attempts that can go blind or open. Exactly what we're doing I don't know, obviously it's to suck in defenders, but I presume it's more detailed in who're we're running at and how many defenders we're then trying to put to the floor and block off

Didn't think Simmonds carried well at all against Wales. Would expect him to improve with experience.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:when he went at the 5-Live reporter in such amusing fashion.

That was a real pop at the 5-liver, must have been some history there.

Is there some audio or transcript of this somewhere?

Raggs wrote:Didn't think Simmonds carried well at all against Wales. Would expect him to improve with experience.

Yeah he's no Hask, that's for sure

I was referring to his two or three pick and go's which iirc were very effective. His acceleration got him over the gainline, let alone the tackle line. I agree his loose carrying wasn't that good, but I think that was only twice.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:when he went at the 5-Live reporter in such amusing fashion.

That was a real pop at the 5-liver, must have been some history there.

Is there some audio or transcript of this somewhere?

Think its in here somewhere; there was a shorter clip, will try and find it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05xyzwl

eta
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05xrtzj

Raggs wrote:Didn't think Simmonds carried well at all against Wales. Would expect him to improve with experience.

More a mixed bag, some of his work was good, some of it wasn't, and sometimes we just didn't create the right situations

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:Didn't think Simmonds carried well at all against Wales. Would expect him to improve with experience.

More a mixed bag, some of his work was good, some of it wasn't, and sometimes we just didn't create the right situations

as you'd expect on 5 carries, tbh.