RugbyRebels

Renniks wrote:I'm still unconvinced for the need to take things into contact off any kind of fast ball or set piece (the only times when you might not have an extra forward or two)…

Sometimes you might have quick ball, but be numbered up against the defense. In that scenario, it's about disarranging the defence and getting it back quick again - bosh is far from the only way to do that, but without it as an option, sides will stop having to defend against it.

And yes, you can use a winger, but that requires them being close to the decision-maker when the decision's needed. If the fly-half looks up and bosh is the right option, but the big winger's out on the wing, then you're screwed.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Renniks wrote:I'm still unconvinced for the need to take things into contact off any kind of fast ball or set piece (the only times when you might not have an extra forward or two)…

Sometimes you might have quick ball, but be numbered up against the defense. In that scenario, it's about disarranging the defence and getting it back quick again - bosh is far from the only way to do that, but without it as an option, sides will stop having to defend against it.

And yes, you can use a winger, but that requires them being close to the decision-maker when the decision's needed. If the fly-half looks up and bosh is the right option, but the big winger's out on the wing, then you're screwed.

Puja

But what is bosh, then?

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Renniks wrote:I'm still unconvinced for the need to take things into contact off any kind of fast ball or set piece (the only times when you might not have an extra forward or two)…

Sometimes you might have quick ball, but be numbered up against the defense. In that scenario, it's about disarranging the defence and getting it back quick again - bosh is far from the only way to do that, but without it as an option, sides will stop having to defend against it.

And yes, you can use a winger, but that requires them being close to the decision-maker when the decision's needed. If the fly-half looks up and bosh is the right option, but the big winger's out on the wing, then you're screwed.

Puja

But what is bosh, then?

Taking an unpromising attacking situation and carrying the ball forward in such a way that a) a tackle is broken or it looks like it might be and it draws men in to halt the gap, or b) ties in two defenders and gets the ball back quickly, or worst case scenario c) you don't go backwards, you don't have to commit more attackers to secure the ball than the defenders had to to stop you, and you get to reset and try again from a different angle.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
Sometimes you might have quick ball, but be numbered up against the defense. In that scenario, it's about disarranging the defence and getting it back quick again - bosh is far from the only way to do that, but without it as an option, sides will stop having to defend against it.

And yes, you can use a winger, but that requires them being close to the decision-maker when the decision's needed. If the fly-half looks up and bosh is the right option, but the big winger's out on the wing, then you're screwed.

Puja

But what is bosh, then?

Taking an unpromising attacking situation and carrying the ball forward in such a way that a) a tackle is broken or it looks like it might be and it draws men in to halt the gap, or b) ties in two defenders and gets the ball back quickly, or worst case scenario c) you don't go backwards, you don't have to commit more attackers to secure the ball than the defenders had to to stop you, and you get to reset and try again from a different angle.

Puja

This.

With unpromising situation being defined as the defence is well set enough that any attempt to break the gainline will involved being tackled by a set defender.

Or at least, that's what bosh should be.

Slow bosh isn't any good in the forwards if you're hoping to score points, slow bosh can allow a partial/full recycle of a system accepting a defence will also reset during that period and for winding down the clock, otherwise outside a significant power advantage you're unlikely to really enjoy even against a Romania it's just pottering about until you kick

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
Sometimes you might have quick ball, but be numbered up against the defense. In that scenario, it's about disarranging the defence and getting it back quick again - bosh is far from the only way to do that, but without it as an option, sides will stop having to defend against it.

And yes, you can use a winger, but that requires them being close to the decision-maker when the decision's needed. If the fly-half looks up and bosh is the right option, but the big winger's out on the wing, then you're screwed.

Puja

But what is bosh, then?

Taking an unpromising attacking situation and carrying the ball forward in such a way that a) a tackle is broken or it looks like it might be and it draws men in to halt the gap, or b) ties in two defenders and gets the ball back quickly, or worst case scenario c) you don't go backwards, you don't have to commit more attackers to secure the ball than the defenders had to to stop you, and you get to reset and try again from a different angle.

Puja

So, in other words, Robshaw was the best bosher we had?

I don't see how that differs from using footwork to put the defense off balance. By making it hard for the first defender, a second must come across.

Our best proponent of bosh against Aus was probably Sinck. And while Sinck is powerful as hell, he also shifts his weight in the tackle to break through. He doesn't just plough straight through them.

Joseph continuously sucks in more defenders and makes more metres than Te'o is basically what I'm saying.

You've basically defined bosh as any positive result from attacking activity that does not result in a clean break.

Sam Simmonds made quite a few metres targeting the gaps. And, if you target the gap - and this is a radical idea, I know - won't both defenders make a move to tackle you? Meaning that if you're good you can open up a nice big gap.

I'm with Stom, everything you've described as to why you need bosh can be handled by players such as Joseph and Eastmond… They play a very different game to May or Daly - and regularly take the ball to the line - but they never seem to look for contact in the same way that Roberts or Te'o do

Renniks wrote:I'm with Stom, everything you've described as to why you need bosh can be handled by players such as Joseph and Eastmond… They play a very different game to May or Daly - and regularly take the ball to the line - but they never seem to look for contact in the same way that Roberts or Te'o do

Indeed. Or in the way Tuilagi did in his pomp and seems to be getting back to.

I don't see the point of picking a player who can break a tackle...but then can't do anything...They need to be able to either break the tackle and get away, break the first tackle and suck in 2-3 defenders, half break the first tackle and suck in 2-3 defenders, or half break the first tackle and get the ball away.

I understand the idea of getting over the gainline as a priority, I just don't really see the point of actively seeking out contact, unless it's in a way that will open the line up for you a la Big Joe on DHP or where you really need to make sure the defender is engaged in order to put a teammate away. Neither of which are considered bosh.

Yeah. hardest game in the world when you've got no bosh.

I would still claim Lee Mears would carry further and make effective yards as a relatively small hooker, against a shrek like 6 foot 4inch hooker who looked for contact - but did "win the collision" and have at least two defenders on the floor with him when stopped.

When you talk about this mornings boxing, if Fury had used his 3 stone bosh in an orthodox leaning on, draining his opponent way, he would have done better. However - he was more preoccupied with showing his elusive outside centre skills and footwork, stopping Wilder from landing his bosh more effectively.

The first knock down was because he was unbalanced and his momentum took him down. The second knock down was a lights out.

Stom wrote: But what is bosh, then?

That's when a player takes the ball into contact with the aim of winning the collision to:

Breaks the tackle
Offload to create a line break
Force a ruck or maul to take the team forward


Rugby "purists" believe there is another option, to get the ball to a player so skilled, he can pass to a team mate who can run through the opposition defense because of the perfection of the pass.

Like the Ford pass to Farrell for his try...

Raggs wrote:Like the Ford pass to Farrell for his try...

You mean the moment Farrell willed the ball to fly from another player’s grasp with his sheer tenacity, to go over for a try?

Rich wrote:

Stom wrote: But what is bosh, then?

That's when a player takes the ball into contact with the aim of winning the collision to:

Breaks the tackle
Offload to create a line break
Force a ruck or maul to take the team forward


Rugby "purists" believe there is another option, to get the ball to a player so skilled, he can pass to a team mate who can run through the opposition defense because of the perfection of the pass.

Why is that better than using footwork to try and avoid the tackle altogether, considering it also increases the chances of breaking the tackle completely?

Rich wrote:

Stom wrote: But what is bosh, then?

That's when a player takes the ball into contact with the aim of winning the collision to:

Breaks the tackle
Offload to create a line break
Force a ruck or maul to take the team forward


Rugby "purists" believe there is another option, to get the ball to a player so skilled, he can pass to a team mate who can run through the opposition defense because of the perfection of the pass.

Or to give the ball to a player who tries to avoid contact with the aim of:
Getting past with no tackle
Offloading if they do get tackled

Mikey Brown wrote:

Raggs wrote:Like the Ford pass to Farrell for his try...

You mean the moment Farrell willed the ball to fly from another player’s grasp with his sheer tenacity, to go over for a try?

He also willed the Aussies to ignore him and focus on Manu, not every midfielder can manage to look so little a threat as a carrier

Stom wrote:

Rich wrote:

Stom wrote: But what is bosh, then?

That's when a player takes the ball into contact with the aim of winning the collision to:

Breaks the tackle
Offload to create a line break
Force a ruck or maul to take the team forward


Rugby "purists" believe there is another option, to get the ball to a player so skilled, he can pass to a team mate who can run through the opposition defense because of the perfection of the pass.

Why is that better than using footwork to try and avoid the tackle altogether, considering it also increases the chances of breaking the tackle completely?

Because sometimes there is no avoiding the tackle and the step merely detracts from your acceleration and makes you easier to tackle.

Look, good boshers should have good feet. Power and quick feet > power. But its not always the right option. And to go back to the original point - the threat of a straight line runner concentrates defenders and gives the distributor more and better options.

Peat wrote:

Stom wrote:

Rich wrote:

That's when a player takes the ball into contact with the aim of winning the collision to:

Breaks the tackle
Offload to create a line break
Force a ruck or maul to take the team forward


Rugby "purists" believe there is another option, to get the ball to a player so skilled, he can pass to a team mate who can run through the opposition defense because of the perfection of the pass.

Why is that better than using footwork to try and avoid the tackle altogether, considering it also increases the chances of breaking the tackle completely?

Because sometimes there is no avoiding the tackle and the step merely detracts from your acceleration and makes you easier to tackle.

Look, good boshers should have good feet. Power and quick feet > power. But its not always the right option. And to go back to the original point - the threat of a straight line runner concentrates defenders and gives the distributor more and better options.

For centres (in my opinion) the priority should be:
1. Bosh & Good feet (Nonu at his peak)
2. Good feet (Eastmond)
3. Bosh (Te'o)
4. Neither (Farrell )

Obviously there are other aspects to a centres game, but this is just talking about the running aspect

What I find most interesting is that using someone in the wrong way is potentially worse than 4…

e.g. Using Slade as a Bosher (when he's not) doesn't hold defences, and doesn't make ground, and can cause the ball to be lost more often than if he just played a passing role

Renniks wrote:

Peat wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why is that better than using footwork to try and avoid the tackle altogether, considering it also increases the chances of breaking the tackle completely?

Because sometimes there is no avoiding the tackle and the step merely detracts from your acceleration and makes you easier to tackle.

Look, good boshers should have good feet. Power and quick feet > power. But its not always the right option. And to go back to the original point - the threat of a straight line runner concentrates defenders and gives the distributor more and better options.

For centres (in my opinion) the priority should be:
1. Bosh & Good feet (Nonu at his peak)
2. Good feet (Eastmond)
3. Bosh (Te'o)
4. Neither (Farrell )

Obviously there are other aspects to a centres game, but this is just talking about the running aspect

What I find most interesting is that using someone in the wrong way is potentially worse than 4…

e.g. Using Slade as a Bosher (when he's not) doesn't hold defences, and doesn't make ground, and can cause the ball to be lost more often than if he just played a passing role

The ability to get the ball away via a pass before contact or offloading out of contact is also crucial, which did apply to Nonu at his best

Peat wrote:

Stom wrote:

Rich wrote:

That's when a player takes the ball into contact with the aim of winning the collision to:

Breaks the tackle
Offload to create a line break
Force a ruck or maul to take the team forward


Rugby "purists" believe there is another option, to get the ball to a player so skilled, he can pass to a team mate who can run through the opposition defense because of the perfection of the pass.

Why is that better than using footwork to try and avoid the tackle altogether, considering it also increases the chances of breaking the tackle completely?

Because sometimes there is no avoiding the tackle and the step merely detracts from your acceleration and makes you easier to tackle.

Look, good boshers should have good feet. Power and quick feet > power. But its not always the right option. And to go back to the original point - the threat of a straight line runner concentrates defenders and gives the distributor more and better options.

I'm kind of just playing devil's advocate now, though

Although I stick by the fact I don't actually think Te'o is very good. I did before, as he'd shown some ability. But he's not done anything since to show he should be playing international rugby. He's just a slightly big centre who has a bit of strength, a teeny bit of footwork and the ability to tackle like a player from RL. Which is not really surprising, considering that's where he came from...

I also would love to see Nonu or a prime SBW or Tuilagi. I also think they're the best options as they can keep the defense guessing.

But I would rather have Ford, Farrell, Joseph than Farrell, Te'o, Tuilagi every single day of the week.

Digby wrote:
The ability to get the ball away via a pass before contact or offloading out of contact is also crucial, which did apply to Nonu at his best

Yeah, I feel the ability to get the ball away is critical for all centres - with pretty much no exception…

The fact that there are exceptions baffles me

Renniks wrote:

Peat wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why is that better than using footwork to try and avoid the tackle altogether, considering it also increases the chances of breaking the tackle completely?

Because sometimes there is no avoiding the tackle and the step merely detracts from your acceleration and makes you easier to tackle.

Look, good boshers should have good feet. Power and quick feet > power. But its not always the right option. And to go back to the original point - the threat of a straight line runner concentrates defenders and gives the distributor more and better options.

For centres (in my opinion) the priority should be:
1. Bosh & Good feet (Nonu at his peak)
2. Good feet (Eastmond)
3. Bosh (Te'o)
4. Neither (Farrell )

Obviously there are other aspects to a centres game, but this is just talking about the running aspect

What I find most interesting is that using someone in the wrong way is potentially worse than 4…

e.g. Using Slade as a Bosher (when he's not) doesn't hold defences, and doesn't make ground, and can cause the ball to be lost more often than if he just played a passing role

Where would you put distribution in that list? Does it beat Good Feet/Bosh?

Stom - I don't really disagree with anything you've said there regards T'eo etc.etc.