Tweet
Link: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...316-2g78f.html
Game's evolution about to take another leap forward
March 17, 2013
Phil Gould
I get the feeling we could be on the verge of another shift in the style of rugby league being played by a number of teams in the NRL competition.
Two reasons.
First, the referees are this year clamping down heavily on the ''no hand on the ball in the tackle'' interpretation, which could well result in an increase in play-the-ball speed. This will be welcome relief to a number of teams who have struggled to find attacking potency in recent years as they suffocated under a wall of defenders, wrestling the life out of their game. If we could just somehow ban this ridiculous third and fourth defender coming in at the legs of the tackled player, the game would loosen up a lot more as well. I will talk more on this point another time.
Second, it appears just about every team is playing with the same strategy, structures and plays as everyone else. If every team played in the same coloured jerseys you wouldn't be able to tell them apart, so identical are their methods of attacking football. My feeling is that this style doesn't necessarily suit many of the sides.
Don't get me wrong; I'm enjoying the football and not for one minute am I second-guessing the coaches. These structures of attacking football must be considered the best way to play the game because all coaches are using them.
I see a lot of effort going into games and these attacking formations but not all teams are getting the desired results. A case in point could be the St George Illawarra Dragons. They did a lot of good things on Friday night but were clearly beaten on the scoreboard by the Broncos. Yet for most of the match, they outpointed the Brisbane boys in a number of areas. The Dragons were fit, strong and quick. They looked organised and it was obvious they had a plan. Their enthusiasm was great. They had the Broncos on the back foot and exhausted for most of the match.
This team was well prepared. What more does a coach have to do?
The problem for the Dragons is that in the final wash-up, they had more than enough ball at the business end of the field to win 10 matches but by the time the full-time siren sounded, they had scored only one try through their big front-rower bowling over the top of some tired defenders.
While they did what they did really well, when it wasn't working for them, they continued to do the same things over and over again, each time expecting a different result.
I'm not singling out the Dragons. I see a number of teams in the same situation. Not only can't they change tack during the course of a match, they don't change from week to week and sometimes from season to season, despite constant frustration.
If nothing changes, nothing changes. My attitude was always that I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. If the style of football doesn't suit the skills of the players at your disposal, you need to make adjustments. This takes courage, a whole lot of self-belief and the support of the playing group who are prepared to accept they must step aside from the norm and be a bit individual in their approach to the game.
I'm not so sure this fits the mould of the modern-day footballer, however. Players today are judgmental of their coaches. They tend to prefer stuff you don't have to think about too much. Players appear comfortable in their own little work spaces, doing the same things over and over regardless of their opponents. They are sometimes influenced more by what other teams are doing and feel they need to look the same or they must be doing it wrong.
I place a lot of the blame for this mentality on the way our kids are coached. I see a lot of schoolboy teams and junior rep teams coached as if they are NRL teams. This is one of my frustrations when watching junior football. Kids are typecast in a specific role and a specific zone from such a young age these days that I don't believe they are getting a rounded education in the game.
Our junior-league football, right from the mini and mod versions of the game, does not encourage the development of playmakers or the necessary grounding in simple skills such as catching, passing, kicking, footwork, support play and so on. I think a lot of talented kids are falling through the cracks because they are obliterated by the obsession with size and power that junior league football has favoured.
Mind you, the moment winning takes precedence over development, coaches will adopt the successful formula of the day for fear his side will be disadvantaged or his players will question why they have to be different to everyone else. Even at NRL level, if someone comes up with a play, a strategy or an angle that produces a try or a defensive technique that wins a game, you can bet your life it will be in every team's playbook the following morning.
I can take you back almost 50 years and describe how the game, this never-ending battle between attack and defence, has evolved to produce the structures we have today. Most of the changes in these decades have come as a result of four major factors: the influence of a coach, the unique talents of an individual player, rule changes and full-time professionalism.
From unlimited tackle football to the four-tackle then six-tackle rules. Jack Gibson brought statistics, player evaluation and accountability. Warren Ryan brought science and strategy that still have great influence over just about every aspect of the modern game today. Tim Sheens and Wayne Bennett coached the super teams of the early 1990s with talent to burn and a football dominance to match.
In modern times, the likes of Craig Bellamy and Des Hasler are most influential. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Individual players have changed the course of play. Any of the great playmakers who excelled for a period forced rival coaches to scour the land for another one just like them, only to find they were one of a kind and if you didn't have the original, it was difficult to replicate the football he produced.
Regarding rules, if defences started to dominate the attack and tries were hard to come by, coaches would scream for things to be changed to loosen up the play.
Once we had gone too far the other way, coaches would find a way to slow it back down again. Our game has progressed through this complex process of action and reaction; quite often it has been more like overreaction.
Full-time professionalism has made players better at just about everything physical. I just wonder if we've actually made them think better. Or have we simply made them more machine-like in their delivery? It would make an interesting study.
I get the feeling that we may be on the verge of something different. Maybe even a trip back in time to discover some style of play that worked long ago. Back to the future is sometimes a great place to start.
We will watch the remainder of the season with great interest.
Game's evolution about to take another leap forward
March 17, 2013
Phil Gould
I get the feeling we could be on the verge of another shift in the style of rugby league being played by a number of teams in the NRL competition.
Two reasons.
First, the referees are this year clamping down heavily on the ''no hand on the ball in the tackle'' interpretation, which could well result in an increase in play-the-ball speed. This will be welcome relief to a number of teams who have struggled to find attacking potency in recent years as they suffocated under a wall of defenders, wrestling the life out of their game. If we could just somehow ban this ridiculous third and fourth defender coming in at the legs of the tackled player, the game would loosen up a lot more as well. I will talk more on this point another time.
Second, it appears just about every team is playing with the same strategy, structures and plays as everyone else. If every team played in the same coloured jerseys you wouldn't be able to tell them apart, so identical are their methods of attacking football. My feeling is that this style doesn't necessarily suit many of the sides.
Don't get me wrong; I'm enjoying the football and not for one minute am I second-guessing the coaches. These structures of attacking football must be considered the best way to play the game because all coaches are using them.
I see a lot of effort going into games and these attacking formations but not all teams are getting the desired results. A case in point could be the St George Illawarra Dragons. They did a lot of good things on Friday night but were clearly beaten on the scoreboard by the Broncos. Yet for most of the match, they outpointed the Brisbane boys in a number of areas. The Dragons were fit, strong and quick. They looked organised and it was obvious they had a plan. Their enthusiasm was great. They had the Broncos on the back foot and exhausted for most of the match.
This team was well prepared. What more does a coach have to do?
The problem for the Dragons is that in the final wash-up, they had more than enough ball at the business end of the field to win 10 matches but by the time the full-time siren sounded, they had scored only one try through their big front-rower bowling over the top of some tired defenders.
While they did what they did really well, when it wasn't working for them, they continued to do the same things over and over again, each time expecting a different result.
I'm not singling out the Dragons. I see a number of teams in the same situation. Not only can't they change tack during the course of a match, they don't change from week to week and sometimes from season to season, despite constant frustration.
If nothing changes, nothing changes. My attitude was always that I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. If the style of football doesn't suit the skills of the players at your disposal, you need to make adjustments. This takes courage, a whole lot of self-belief and the support of the playing group who are prepared to accept they must step aside from the norm and be a bit individual in their approach to the game.
I'm not so sure this fits the mould of the modern-day footballer, however. Players today are judgmental of their coaches. They tend to prefer stuff you don't have to think about too much. Players appear comfortable in their own little work spaces, doing the same things over and over regardless of their opponents. They are sometimes influenced more by what other teams are doing and feel they need to look the same or they must be doing it wrong.
I place a lot of the blame for this mentality on the way our kids are coached. I see a lot of schoolboy teams and junior rep teams coached as if they are NRL teams. This is one of my frustrations when watching junior football. Kids are typecast in a specific role and a specific zone from such a young age these days that I don't believe they are getting a rounded education in the game.
Our junior-league football, right from the mini and mod versions of the game, does not encourage the development of playmakers or the necessary grounding in simple skills such as catching, passing, kicking, footwork, support play and so on. I think a lot of talented kids are falling through the cracks because they are obliterated by the obsession with size and power that junior league football has favoured.
Mind you, the moment winning takes precedence over development, coaches will adopt the successful formula of the day for fear his side will be disadvantaged or his players will question why they have to be different to everyone else. Even at NRL level, if someone comes up with a play, a strategy or an angle that produces a try or a defensive technique that wins a game, you can bet your life it will be in every team's playbook the following morning.
I can take you back almost 50 years and describe how the game, this never-ending battle between attack and defence, has evolved to produce the structures we have today. Most of the changes in these decades have come as a result of four major factors: the influence of a coach, the unique talents of an individual player, rule changes and full-time professionalism.
From unlimited tackle football to the four-tackle then six-tackle rules. Jack Gibson brought statistics, player evaluation and accountability. Warren Ryan brought science and strategy that still have great influence over just about every aspect of the modern game today. Tim Sheens and Wayne Bennett coached the super teams of the early 1990s with talent to burn and a football dominance to match.
In modern times, the likes of Craig Bellamy and Des Hasler are most influential. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Individual players have changed the course of play. Any of the great playmakers who excelled for a period forced rival coaches to scour the land for another one just like them, only to find they were one of a kind and if you didn't have the original, it was difficult to replicate the football he produced.
Regarding rules, if defences started to dominate the attack and tries were hard to come by, coaches would scream for things to be changed to loosen up the play.
Once we had gone too far the other way, coaches would find a way to slow it back down again. Our game has progressed through this complex process of action and reaction; quite often it has been more like overreaction.
Full-time professionalism has made players better at just about everything physical. I just wonder if we've actually made them think better. Or have we simply made them more machine-like in their delivery? It would make an interesting study.
I get the feeling that we may be on the verge of something different. Maybe even a trip back in time to discover some style of play that worked long ago. Back to the future is sometimes a great place to start.
We will watch the remainder of the season with great interest.
Comment