Digby wrote:It's having someone like Pollard on the bench I find more amusing. I don't know what the Montpellier player spend is, but when one side has Pollard on the bench and the other Henry then one club's spend is likely some multiple higher
Pollard is only just coming back from a long term injury
He's been on the bench of recent times is all I've noticed, just given there was comment about the other Saffa halfback on the bench he's actually the much bigger name on the bench. Mind some of their names that don't even make the bench are absurd
Banquo wrote:Kicking for territory is hardly a new thing, nor an Eddie Jones thing, and the analysis for it is hardly rocket science.
As Bob Dwyer sort of said, any fool can coach a side to win using kicking. The problem comes when the other side are better at kick tennis.
Does Mr Dwyer put on record his opinion of someone who coaches a side to lose using kicking? I see the over-use of kicking as an attempt to not lose or, at least, not to lose too badly. Winning is almost a bit of a sneak to get away with after using up as much of the 80 minutes as possible. It may work but I'd rather lose trying to play rugby and win the game. I accept that it makes me a bit of a dinosaur these days.
Not really- what would be dinosaur like is not to accept that there is more than one way of skinning a cat. Kicking IS playing rugby, as much as passing, running, mauling etc. And I'm afraid the objective/aim of any game is surely to win? As an ex player and coach, didn't really care overly how winning happened (drawing the line at overt cheating) to be honest. Your corinthian view of the game is well and good, but if the side you have simply cannot succeed playing the style you advocate, then it would seem like madness to lose week in week out trying to do so; you may accept (a couple of) losses if building a grand plan, but most coaches and many players do not have that luxury, nor is it fun. That said, you don't necessarily set 'winning' as an objective on a game by game basis- though I think that should always be the aim, even when developing a side; your objectives should be about executing everything you have planned well, including what happens when the oppostion don't comply.
I take enjoyment as a spectator for all the elements of the game and how they are used by different sides in different ways is a great part of the attraction of RU; but intrinsically, that also makes the game hard in terms of mass appeal........
Basically agree with what you are saying, but still, Leicester had no plan B. You nailed it with the last phrase of your first paragraph.
Puja wrote:To be fair, they were close to the touchline and our maul had been dominant, so I was supportive of both calls. A try would have put us in the box seat, while getting 2 points ahead would've left us very vulnerable to a Pollard 60m kick.
Oakboy wrote:
Does Mr Dwyer put on record his opinion of someone who coaches a side to lose using kicking? I see the over-use of kicking as an attempt to not lose or, at least, not to lose too badly. Winning is almost a bit of a sneak to get away with after using up as much of the 80 minutes as possible. It may work but I'd rather lose trying to play rugby and win the game. I accept that it makes me a bit of a dinosaur these days.
Not really- what would be dinosaur like is not to accept that there is more than one way of skinning a cat. Kicking IS playing rugby, as much as passing, running, mauling etc. And I'm afraid the objective/aim of any game is surely to win? As an ex player and coach, didn't really care overly how winning happened (drawing the line at overt cheating) to be honest. Your corinthian view of the game is well and good, but if the side you have simply cannot succeed playing the style you advocate, then it would seem like madness to lose week in week out trying to do so; you may accept (a couple of) losses if building a grand plan, but most coaches and many players do not have that luxury, nor is it fun. That said, you don't necessarily set 'winning' as an objective on a game by game basis- though I think that should always be the aim, even when developing a side; your objectives should be about executing everything you have planned well, including what happens when the oppostion don't comply.
I take enjoyment as a spectator for all the elements of the game and how they are used by different sides in different ways is a great part of the attraction of RU; but intrinsically, that also makes the game hard in terms of mass appeal........
Basically agree with what you are saying, but still, Leicester had no plan B. You nailed it with the last phrase of your first paragraph.
Oh yes, I didn't actually see much of the game so wasn't referring to Tigers tbh. I'd said in a previous post that the problem occurred when the other side has a better kicking game (or, if you have a ball in hand or width or pace based game, that the oppos are better at that); that's why the game 'plan' ideally has a number of plans- the difficulty is when you don't have the players to change effectively.
Banquo wrote:
Not really- what would be dinosaur like is not to accept that there is more than one way of skinning a cat. Kicking IS playing rugby, as much as passing, running, mauling etc. And I'm afraid the objective/aim of any game is surely to win? As an ex player and coach, didn't really care overly how winning happened (drawing the line at overt cheating) to be honest. Your corinthian view of the game is well and good, but if the side you have simply cannot succeed playing the style you advocate, then it would seem like madness to lose week in week out trying to do so; you may accept (a couple of) losses if building a grand plan, but most coaches and many players do not have that luxury, nor is it fun. That said, you don't necessarily set 'winning' as an objective on a game by game basis- though I think that should always be the aim, even when developing a side; your objectives should be about executing everything you have planned well, including what happens when the oppostion don't comply.
I take enjoyment as a spectator for all the elements of the game and how they are used by different sides in different ways is a great part of the attraction of RU; but intrinsically, that also makes the game hard in terms of mass appeal........
Basically agree with what you are saying, but still, Leicester had no plan B. You nailed it with the last phrase of your first paragraph.
Oh yes, I didn't actually see much of the game so wasn't referring to Tigers tbh. I'd said in a previous post that the problem occurred when the other side has a better kicking game (or, if you have a ball in hand or width or pace based game, that the oppos are better at that); that's why the game 'plan' ideally has a number of plans- the difficulty is when you don't have the players to change effectively.
Why do you think this is the case? One would imagine, in the era of full-time, professional rugby, that it should be quite possible to develop a squad of skilful and intelligent players capable of reading the game, playing what is in front of them, varying tactics, making meaningful on-field decisions etc... Coaches seem content simply to produce a bunch of play-by-numbers robots and the players themselves are discouraged from varying the game plan (probably on pain of being axed) even when it's not working.
Spiffy wrote:Basically agree with what you are saying, but still, Leicester had no plan B. You nailed it with the last phrase of your first paragraph.
Oh yes, I didn't actually see much of the game so wasn't referring to Tigers tbh. I'd said in a previous post that the problem occurred when the other side has a better kicking game (or, if you have a ball in hand or width or pace based game, that the oppos are better at that); that's why the game 'plan' ideally has a number of plans- the difficulty is when you don't have the players to change effectively.
Why do you think this is the case? One would imagine, in the era of full-time, professional rugby, that it should be quite possible to develop a squad of skilful and intelligent players capable of reading the game, playing what is in front of them, varying tactics, making meaningful on-field decisions etc... Coaches seem content simply to produce a bunch of play-by-numbers robots and the players themselves are discouraged from varying the game plan (probably on pain of being axed) even when it's not working.
Not uniformly and not in depth, but I was thinking similar when I wrote my original post! RU doesn't have the choice of the very best of talented sports people here, in fairness....but I do think we are generally not great at coaching the talent we have in England (certainly in comparison to NZ for example). There is a line of least resistance/easy to develop game planning......and we've now gone full circle on the debate. You need time and patience and the talent; why do you think there are so many imports?
Let's say everyone had those skill sets. Some would still be better than others right?
They could perhaps play the game faster and closer to the line etc than the others. Defence would be at a similar reaction speed. Stopping offloads and reading plays. They'd be able to shut down moves faster.
You could theorise that despite a player having a full skill set, that if the defence were simply too fast etc, he would be unable to display those skills. They'd even be removed as their vision of the game simply wouldn't be fast enough to keep up and thus those skills would effectively be lost. Only the very best would still be able to display those traits as only they would be sharp enough to.
So yeah, that.
I don't know how many of you still play or at what level, but my reckoning is that most international props could step in at fly half for most amateur club leagues and put most players to shame with their skills.
Banquo wrote:
Oh yes, I didn't actually see much of the game so wasn't referring to Tigers tbh. I'd said in a previous post that the problem occurred when the other side has a better kicking game (or, if you have a ball in hand or width or pace based game, that the oppos are better at that); that's why the game 'plan' ideally has a number of plans- the difficulty is when you don't have the players to change effectively.
Why do you think this is the case? One would imagine, in the era of full-time, professional rugby, that it should be quite possible to develop a squad of skilful and intelligent players capable of reading the game, playing what is in front of them, varying tactics, making meaningful on-field decisions etc... Coaches seem content simply to produce a bunch of play-by-numbers robots and the players themselves are discouraged from varying the game plan (probably on pain of being axed) even when it's not working.
Not uniformly and not in depth, but I was thinking similar when I wrote my original post! RU doesn't have the choice of the very best of talented sports people here, in fairness....but I do think we are generally not great at coaching the talent we have in England (certainly in comparison to NZ for example). There is a line of least resistance/easy to develop game planning......and we've now gone full circle on the debate. You need time and patience and the talent; why do you think there are so many imports?
Yes. There are many talented kids emerging from good rugby schools and playing to a high standard in England age group teams. The problem arises when they arrive at a professional club and have the intuitive talent coached out of them to conform to a low-bar norm. There seems to be a sort of safety-first coaching ethic that allows less freedom of expression to young developing players compared with their counterparts in other countries. Don't know why. Maybe UK coaches are primarily concerned with not losing, rather than winning; and with physicality over ball skills. The bludgeon does frequently overcome the rapier but a well-balanced team should have a bit of both and the know-how of when to use them.
Raggs wrote:Let's say everyone had those skill sets. Some would still be better than others right?
They could perhaps play the game faster and closer to the line etc than the others. Defence would be at a similar reaction speed. Stopping offloads and reading plays. They'd be able to shut down moves faster.
You could theorise that despite a player having a full skill set, that if the defence were simply too fast etc, he would be unable to display those skills. They'd even be removed as their vision of the game simply wouldn't be fast enough to keep up and thus those skills would effectively be lost. Only the very best would still be able to display those traits as only they would be sharp enough to.
So yeah, that.
I don't know how many of you still play or at what level, but my reckoning is that most international props could step in at fly half for most amateur club leagues and put most players to shame with their skills.
You've lost me, what point are you trying to make? Is it that defences are at such a level, that no matter how skilled a team might be, the percentages aren't with them?
And I think to make that point about props you'd need to define up to what level of amateur rugby you refer to, or even why it’s relevant. Of course a top pro has much better skill sets than amateurs.
Last edited by Banquo on Mon May 24, 2021 8:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
Spiffy wrote:
Why do you think this is the case? One would imagine, in the era of full-time, professional rugby, that it should be quite possible to develop a squad of skilful and intelligent players capable of reading the game, playing what is in front of them, varying tactics, making meaningful on-field decisions etc... Coaches seem content simply to produce a bunch of play-by-numbers robots and the players themselves are discouraged from varying the game plan (probably on pain of being axed) even when it's not working.
Not uniformly and not in depth, but I was thinking similar when I wrote my original post! RU doesn't have the choice of the very best of talented sports people here, in fairness....but I do think we are generally not great at coaching the talent we have in England (certainly in comparison to NZ for example). There is a line of least resistance/easy to develop game planning......and we've now gone full circle on the debate. You need time and patience and the talent; why do you think there are so many imports?
Yes. There are many talented kids emerging from good rugby schools and playing to a high standard in England age group teams. The problem arises when they arrive at a professional club and have the intuitive talent coached out of them to conform to a low-bar norm. There seems to be a sort of safety-first coaching ethic that allows less freedom of expression to young developing players compared with their counterparts in other countries. Don't know why. Maybe UK coaches are primarily concerned with not losing, rather than winning; and with physicality over ball skills. The bludgeon does frequently overcome the rapier but a well-balanced team should have a bit of both and the know-how of when to use them.
There is a lot of truth in all that. I'd also say that whilst coaching has massively improved at age group levels (see Fletcher et al) its still too patchy, and frankly too many coaches are coaching without the skills or aptitude to do so. That said, I've lost track with how high or low the bar is to get coaching badges now- when I did mine, its was pretty easy in truth to get a senior coaches badge as it was then, and I was pretty horrified at some of the blokes I met being allowed to coach anyone (not safeguarding issues, to be clear!).
I suspect the bigger problem exists just below the pro clubs where there is a much easier path to progress if picking those more physically developed, the senior pro clubs actually do a pretty good job picking the most skilled out of what they're presented. People like Fletcher have done much to advance this situation, but there's a long, long way to go to correct the supply into the pro game.
Also there aren't many talented kids energy from good rugby schools, partly there are only a few rugby schools (which speaks to the bigger problem of never having access to the most talented youngsters) but also they're often not that talented, they just look good surrounded by fodder
The academy systems work well for those inside them in the main, but it's such a tiny number in the overall scheme of things it's all those we never get to see where the potential lies. But, reaching out beyond the current structures is pricey, and rugby like football diverts a huge % of revenue into player and senior admin wages, way above a normal business model, and that limits what can be done. Worse still in a country like the UK which isn't the best at public service provision and if not getting worse certainly isn't advancing team sports
Raggs wrote:Let's say everyone had those skill sets. Some would still be better than others right?
They could perhaps play the game faster and closer to the line etc than the others. Defence would be at a similar reaction speed. Stopping offloads and reading plays. They'd be able to shut down moves faster.
You could theorise that despite a player having a full skill set, that if the defence were simply too fast etc, he would be unable to display those skills. They'd even be removed as their vision of the game simply wouldn't be fast enough to keep up and thus those skills would effectively be lost. Only the very best would still be able to display those traits as only they would be sharp enough to.
So yeah, that.
I don't know how many of you still play or at what level, but my reckoning is that most international props could step in at fly half for most amateur club leagues and put most players to shame with their skills.
You've lost me, what point are you trying to make? Is it that defences are at such a level, that no matter how skilled a team might be, the percentages aren't with them?
And I think to make that point about props you'd need to define up to what level of amateur rugby you refer to, or even why it’s relevant. Of course a top pro has much better skill sets than amateurs.
My point is that top flight players are basically all ridiculously skillful with wide ranging skillsets. But the pressures and speeds inevitably also rise because of those high level skills, meaning only the very best actually have the ability to show off most of those skills. Stick a prop (chosen because we would often consider them the least well rounded in terms of skills etc) in a low level game, when there's nowhere near the same time pressure, and you'd see they are well rounded players.
Also worth noting that our standards have risen with the standards of the players. Jonny Hill drew a defender and made a 15m pass to put Watson away in the 6N and we shrugged our shoulders and said, "Yeah, that was okay I guess, but I'm not sure he's England quality." Think back 15 years ago and people were exulting over Danny Grewcock having made an offload in a tackle.
Digby wrote:I suspect the bigger problem exists just below the pro clubs where there is a much easier path to progress if picking those more physically developed, the senior pro clubs actually do a pretty good job picking the most skilled out of what they're presented. People like Fletcher have done much to advance this situation, but there's a long, long way to go to correct the supply into the pro game.
Also there aren't many talented kids energy from good rugby schools, partly there are only a few rugby schools (which speaks to the bigger problem of never having access to the most talented youngsters) but also they're often not that talented, they just look good surrounded by fodder
The academy systems work well for those inside them in the main, but it's such a tiny number in the overall scheme of things it's all those we never get to see where the potential lies. But, reaching out beyond the current structures is pricey, and rugby like football diverts a huge % of revenue into player and senior admin wages, way above a normal business model, and that limits what can be done. Worse still in a country like the UK which isn't the best at public service provision and if not getting worse certainly isn't advancing team sports
Puja wrote:Also worth noting that our standards have risen with the standards of the players. Jonny Hill drew a defender and made a 15m pass to put Watson away in the 6N and we shrugged our shoulders and said, "Yeah, that was okay I guess, but I'm not sure he's England quality." Think back 15 years ago and people were exulting over Danny Grewcock having made an offload in a tackle.
Puja
Of course standards have risen and continue to rise-its about staying ahead of the curve rather than chasing or shrugging your shoulders. On Hill, the question is less about skill,more intelligence under pressure I’d say-which is a good question about our current squad, along with advanced skills like passing
The original point lest we forget was about coaches working with what they’ve got.
Raggs wrote:Let's say everyone had those skill sets. Some would still be better than others right?
They could perhaps play the game faster and closer to the line etc than the others. Defence would be at a similar reaction speed. Stopping offloads and reading plays. They'd be able to shut down moves faster.
You could theorise that despite a player having a full skill set, that if the defence were simply too fast etc, he would be unable to display those skills. They'd even be removed as their vision of the game simply wouldn't be fast enough to keep up and thus those skills would effectively be lost. Only the very best would still be able to display those traits as only they would be sharp enough to.
So yeah, that.
I don't know how many of you still play or at what level, but my reckoning is that most international props could step in at fly half for most amateur club leagues and put most players to shame with their skills.
You've lost me, what point are you trying to make? Is it that defences are at such a level, that no matter how skilled a team might be, the percentages aren't with them?
And I think to make that point about props you'd need to define up to what level of amateur rugby you refer to, or even why it’s relevant. Of course a top pro has much better skill sets than amateurs.
My point is that top flight players are basically all ridiculously skillful with wide ranging skillsets. But the pressures and speeds inevitably also rise because of those high level skills, meaning only the very best actually have the ability to show off most of those skills. Stick a prop (chosen because we would often consider them the least well rounded in terms of skills etc) in a low level game, when there's nowhere near the same time pressure, and you'd see they are well rounded players.
Obviously there is a huge gulf between top players and the rest tbh, though I'd say that some England players (say) are far from 'ridiculously skilful' in their peer group; I'd say the point about having theoretical top skills vs executing under pressure and fatigued is where I'd say the skills gap is for a lot of our 'top' players, and where we need to make strides....and it starts with being under that sort of pressure from quite young tbh. We've all seen the (often) big lad with good skills who has never really been challenged overly, but who then struggles in senior rugby-- I'd argue the academy or club coach should be persevering, but often they don't, and buy in a known performer who can be 'trusted'. And that's where the crux of this discussion started- why do coaches play with (as commented) 'limited' game plans....and as with Eddie, there is a bit of chicken and egg imo. His head says 'WIN', and he still can't quite trust the group with (say) the kind of game Japan played, though he is showing signs of wanting to speed up again and play with more intensity ball in hand; he simply was cutting his cloth in the Autumn as i think most have acknowledged. In most cases, pro coaches really don't have as much licence as ideal to develop sides to deal with the sort of defensive pressure you allude to, so play the percentages; its a difficult one....and our top two prem sides at present provide a very interesting contrast in coaches approaches, in many facets. I would say though, that any coach who only has one plan is heading for a fall in general, though their percentages might look great
Puja wrote:Also worth noting that our standards have risen with the standards of the players. Jonny Hill drew a defender and made a 15m pass to put Watson away in the 6N and we shrugged our shoulders and said, "Yeah, that was okay I guess, but I'm not sure he's England quality." Think back 15 years ago and people were exulting over Danny Grewcock having made an offload in a tackle.
Puja
Just wait until you see Jonny Hill’s kicking. Might even by why Gatland picked him
Puja wrote:Also worth noting that our standards have risen with the standards of the players. Jonny Hill drew a defender and made a 15m pass to put Watson away in the 6N and we shrugged our shoulders and said, "Yeah, that was okay I guess, but I'm not sure he's England quality." Think back 15 years ago and people were exulting over Danny Grewcock having made an offload in a tackle.
Puja
Just wait until you see Jonny Hill’s kicking. Might even by why Gatland picked him
That left footed old skool torpedo was a thing of wonder; clearly its what held Kruis back.
Puja wrote:Also worth noting that our standards have risen with the standards of the players. Jonny Hill drew a defender and made a 15m pass to put Watson away in the 6N and we shrugged our shoulders and said, "Yeah, that was okay I guess, but I'm not sure he's England quality." Think back 15 years ago and people were exulting over Danny Grewcock having made an offload in a tackle.
Puja
Just wait until you see Jonny Hill’s kicking. Might even by why Gatland picked him
That left footed old skool torpedo was a thing of wonder; clearly its what held Kruis back.
Taking one of your main points forward (that discipline was the biggest problem in our abysmal 6N effort), how much of the problem relates to environment/motivation and how much to individual skill/intelligence? Hill might be something of an example. Gifted enough, apparently, for the Lions; not a disciplinary culprit for Exeter; yet discarded after one match for Ewels for being a penalty issue (perhaps).
Last edited by Oakboy on Mon May 24, 2021 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scrumhead wrote:
Just wait until you see Jonny Hill’s kicking. Might even by why Gatland picked him
That left footed old skool torpedo was a thing of wonder; clearly its what held Kruis back.
Taking one of your main points forward (that discipline was the biggest problem in our abysmal 6N effort), how much of the problem relates to environment/motivation and how much to individual skill/intelligence? Hill might be something of an example. Gifted enough, apparently, for the Lions; not a disciplinary culprit for Exeter; yet discarded after one match for Ewels for being a penalty issue (perhaps).
Banquo wrote:
That left footed old skool torpedo was a thing of wonder; clearly its what held Kruis back.
Taking one of your main points forward (that discipline was the biggest problem in our abysmal 6N effort), how much of the problem relates to environment/motivation and how much to individual skill/intelligence? Hill might be something of an example. Gifted enough, apparently, for the Lions; not a disciplinary culprit for Exeter; yet discarded after one match for Ewels for being a penalty issue (perhaps).
Taking one of your main points forward (that discipline was the biggest problem in our abysmal 6N effort), how much of the problem relates to environment/motivation and how much to individual skill/intelligence? Hill might be something of an example. Gifted enough, apparently, for the Lions; not a disciplinary culprit for Exeter; yet discarded after one match for Ewels for being a penalty issue (perhaps).
Really. We're doing this again?
Puja
Sorry, don't bother, then.
He wasn't discarded after one match, in fact he played three in a row, including after his most garish ill discipline v Scotland. We did also go on to beat France after he was benched. I think Jones was more seeing if Ewels was up to it, and this was after Ewels made a bit of howler v Wales when we were on the attack and the whole momentum changed.
)
