RugbyRebels

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?

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.

Banquo wrote:

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.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

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).

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

morepork wrote:

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.

Renniks wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/47279324

Enjoyed this

Their combined 15:

Mako, Owens, Sinckler
AWJ, Lawes
Wilson, Tipuric, Billy V
Youngs, Farrell
May, Tuilagi, Davies, North, Williams

Not sure I'd argue with that… Some through lack of better options, others close calls…

TheDasher wrote:

Renniks wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/47279324

Enjoyed this

Their combined 15:

Mako, Owens, Sinckler
AWJ, Lawes
Wilson, Tipuric, Billy V
Youngs, Farrell
May, Tuilagi, Davies, North, Williams

Not sure I'd argue with that… Some through lack of better options, others close calls…

I might have George over Owens to be honest.

Whilst Lawes been playing well and is in great form, overall Launch is better than Lawes.

I've always thought Tipuric, though a lovely footballer, to be slightly overrated. I think Curry seems more physical, so, so impressed with him.

Otherwise, probably fair enough.

Stom wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Renniks wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/47279324

Enjoyed this

Their combined 15:

Mako, Owens, Sinckler
AWJ, Lawes
Wilson, Tipuric, Billy V
Youngs, Farrell
May, Tuilagi, Davies, North, Williams

Not sure I'd argue with that… Some through lack of better options, others close calls…

I might have George over Owens to be honest.

Whilst Lawes been playing well and is in great form, overall Launch is better than Lawes.

I've always thought Tipuric, though a lovely footballer, to be slightly overrated. I think Curry seems more physical, so, so impressed with him.

Otherwise, probably fair enough.

I would not want a midfield of Tuilagi and Davies...they have 1 hand between them.

Has John Mitchell given the game away?

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.

Stom wrote:Wow, a leak...

Has John Mitchell given the game away?

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.

Timbo wrote:He’s also an expert at playing away from home.