Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 42 of 42

Thread: "The game is faster now"

  1. #26
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spritehawk View Post
    It's funny that you should post this - we watched the '96 Warrington game a couple of weeks ago. Weird - Scully and Paul Cullen playing for Wires and a young KC getting plaudits from the Hoofemeister! We commented that the game was faster than it is now. Players also seemed to run in harder and the tackles were fiercer. Head shots and niggling in the tackle were basically ignored and players just got up and got on with it. There was no appealing to the ref for penalties. It just seemed a much harder game. Very entertaining!!
    I wonder if the players were running in harder because the play-the-ball took place quicker and because everyone was still getting back into position defensively. If there had been a line break on the previous tackle (and there usually was), the attacking forwards were still trotting up to their own position when receiving the ball, therefore being in a position to accelerate to a faster speed in a shorter space of time. Now, not only are the defences in a line ready for the next play, so are the attackers, therefore the move starts with them standing totally still.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  2. #27
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,358
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DD View Post
    Had I not taken time out to study the issue I would have said the same thing. What I noticed though that the players, by and large, instantly got up from the tackle, the ball was played quicker and the defensive structure didn't have time to all get in line. Once the first receiver then broke the first line then there was even more space on the next play-the-ball as even more players were out of line.

    I also noticed that speed of movement was much more apparent than physical pace. The ball was shifted through five pairs of hands in about the time it takes to get through three now. Is that speed of thought or is it because there was so much space with the defensive line being all over the place that you simply had the chance to pass it through so many hands without being flattened by the massed straight wall that now comes at you?

    I was of the belief that slowing the play-the-ball down would increase skills not so long ago but we tried that in 2009 and we had a very dire year. The theory then was that we would have to bide our time to see results but when I look back to that game I see a game that was much faster and much more open. Players could utilise skills because they had more space and time do so. Now it seems to me that the slowness, the mauling and the wrestling only has one benefit and that is to allow the defence to be so structured that the only plausible tactic to get near the opposition try line is to scoot or barge. As a result this has led to a one dimensional product. Without the defences being stretched, there is no gap to run through, no support necessary, no speed required and you either plough your way over or look for a mistake to hand you a try after a kick to the in-goal area.

    We need a way to get defences to have to turn and face their own line again, to catch them out of position and to eradicate the constant issue of facing a thirteen man wall. The only way I can see this is to reduce the time allowed for holding down (as players are coached to use it to the maximum) and maybe allow players to play the ball to themselves when not marked as they used to.

    What was particularly noticeable was how props on the run could carry the defender about 5 or even 10 metres before eventually being put down. This rarely happens now because the defence is so in position, so prepared, that the defending prop is meeting the attacking prop at the same speed. Momentum no longer favours the attacking forward so you either break the tackle and you are away or you don't. 99 times out of 100 it is the latter.
    This wonderful game illustrates the many excellent points you have made including those made earlier about playing the ball to yourself. At times the PTB in this game is extremely quick compared to all the wrestling which goes on now. The speed of the players is far quicker than today and the impact and aggression of the attacking forwards as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LOB...eature=related

  3. #28
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    115
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DD View Post
    I wonder if the players were running in harder because the play-the-ball took place quicker and because everyone was still getting back into position defensively. If there had been a line break on the previous tackle (and there usually was), the attacking forwards were still trotting up to their own position when receiving the ball, therefore being in a position to accelerate to a faster speed in a shorter space of time. Now, not only are the defences in a line ready for the next play, so are the attackers, therefore the move starts with them standing totally still.
    I think it was because both teams were lying much deeper. In attack now, we are so flat we often take the ball standing still. Back then, we were running on to it and hitting a pass at full pace and had a bit of time before the defenders were on top of the ball carrier. The whole shape of the game was different.

  4. #29
    really is sorry Reacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wigan
    Age
    48
    Posts
    11,967
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    The way Wigan move the ball, utilise dummy runners and inside passes, it's like watching it 10-15 years ago. They have so many options it's untrue

  5. #30
    Moderator Div's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sintellins
    Posts
    11,911
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Wheeled Saint View Post
    Because Roy Hagg wouldn't know what to do on his first tackle without the 'play to yourself' option.
    Don't diss the Hagg Dav !

  6. #31
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spritehawk View Post
    I think it was because both teams were lying much deeper. In attack now, we are so flat we often take the ball standing still. Back then, we were running on to it and hitting a pass at full pace and had a bit of time before the defenders were on top of the ball carrier. The whole shape of the game was different.
    Sometimes the reason we were deeper though was often because the previous play had seen the ball carrier make more metres, therefore the gap between the play-the-ball and the oncoming attacks would still needed to be bridged rather than being already there.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  7. #32
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,650
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reacher View Post
    The way Wigan move the ball, utilise dummy runners and inside passes, it's like watching it 10-15 years ago. They have so many options it's untrue
    its no different to what we were doing in 06-07. we just dont have the skill speed or organisation to do it now.

  8. #33
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lee.ashtonsaint View Post
    its no different to what we were doing in 06-07. we just dont have the skill speed or organisation to do it now.
    The style of rugby in 2006/7 was pretty basic. We didn't base our game on any flare. We had Cunningham and Roby alternating at hooker and we had five genuine class props who laid a great platform. Our back line in 2007 was Wellens, Gardner, Gidley, Talau, Meli, Pryce, Long. It had very little pace. Long's injuries had taken their toll and only Pryce had any sort of pace.

    Wigan's back line is significantly faster than ours was then. The style of the teams were very different to each other.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  9. #34
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    near leigh
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    I agree with what div says, iv,e said many times the teams should have been coached before they take the field and if they don,t play to the rules the referee just has to penalise them, the players and coaches would get the message and we the speccies would get a better, faster game to watch.

  10. #35
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    A big difference between then and now is the number of interchanges allowed. Forwards tired and backs took advantage. Nowadays, props are rested every 15/20mns or so and you don't get the same fatigue factor.

  11. #36
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,358
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Apologies for posting an article that appeared in the Aussie press about this discussion topic.

    I make no apology for the content though as Wayne Bennett is spot on in his assertions. Everthing that he says could equally be applied to Super League.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1226332118467

    I think its a valuable contribution to why the game has slowed down compared from several years ago and why it isn't as attractive to watch as it used to be.

  12. #37
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    115
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    He's bang on with that, IMO! As you say, applies directly to Super League.

  13. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by parrsaint View Post
    Apologies for posting an article that appeared in the Aussie press about this discussion topic.

    I make no apology for the content though as Wayne Bennett is spot on in his assertions. Everthing that he says could equally be applied to Super League.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1226332118467

    I think its a valuable contribution to why the game has slowed down compared from several years ago and why it isn't as attractive to watch as it used to be.
    Completely agree.

    The situation reminds me of the cricket bodyline series and a quote by Ian Chappell. Chappell applauded Douglas Jardine for applying the bodyline tactic of having Harold Larwood bowl 100mph at a batsman's body with 7 or so fielders round the leg side near where the batter would desperately fend off the ball. Although this tactic was seen as unsporting and against the game, Chappell praised Jardine for exploiting the rules as they were. Herein lies the key.

    The similarity is striking in the sense that our modern day coaches and players are constantly seeking 'the edge' over their competitors and studying other sports is the vogue in trying to identify and execute ways to accomplish this. This is why we have wrestling, American Football esque gang tackles and the like.

    If the administrators were ahead of the game or had the ability to anticipate where rules can be taken to the extreme, the game would benefit. Crucially and administration also needs the ability to consult and agree changes with the coaches and players. I am not confident the RFL could ever do this as they mismanage just about everything they come into contact with.

    I think the game as a whole is faster and more collision based than pre Super League- its bound to be with more replacements and the rise of nutrition, physiotherapy and the like, but the growth of 'negative' tactics and the cost of skill at the expense of making a faster but more balnd spectacle has ruined a lot of what is good about rugby league. Previously I think the game got away with this as post 1996 a lot of teams struggled defensively with faster grounds, stricter reffing and rule changes designed to promote the offensive side of the game. The game adapted by use of the above coupled with more conventional coaching methods.

    The game also often appears slower when the ball is spread now because of the fascination with running the same traning ground 'wedge' moves with the full back coming round the back and the need to 'secure possesion' and hope the opponant buckles through territory and saftey first rugby.

  14. #39
    Learning All The Songs MancSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sin City
    Posts
    1,415
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    great piece by Bennett

    "well, the game is worth nothing if we can't entertain people."

    Nail on head.

  15. #40
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post

    I think the game as a whole is faster and more collision based than pre Super League- its bound to be with more replacements and the rise of nutrition, physiotherapy and the like, but the growth of 'negative' tactics and the cost of skill at the expense of making a faster but more balnd spectacle has ruined a lot of what is good about rugby league. .
    How exactly is it faster? Players don't run the ball in faster, they don't move it as quickly, the play-the-balls are slower, there are no speedsters in the game.

    The players might be fitter but what exactly is faster?

    The 'collison' has intensified and that is because defences have more time to move up and meet the attackers creating a 15mph meets 20mph (force of 35mph) collision as opposed to a 5mph versus 20mph (25mph) one, but that's not what I call faster, just more intense at the point of contact.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  16. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DD View Post
    How exactly is it faster? Players don't run the ball in faster, they don't move it as quickly, the play-the-balls are slower, there are no speedsters in the game.

    The players might be fitter but what exactly is faster?

    The 'collison' has intensified and that is because defences have more time to move up and meet the attackers creating a 15mph meets 20mph (force of 35mph) collision as opposed to a 5mph versus 20mph (25mph) one, but that's not what I call faster, just more intense at the point of contact.
    I don't think teams tire at the end of the games like the used to. I think forwards, especially props, are more mobile generally speaking. Conversely wingers are pedestrian nowadays - a young Allan Hunte playing in todays era would be jizzed over by Eddie and Stevo. There is more speed around the ruck as a 10 metre rule effectively allows for more than a few 'scoots.'

  17. #42
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    I don't think teams tire at the end of the games like the used to. I think forwards, especially props, are more mobile generally speaking. Conversely wingers are pedestrian nowadays - a young Allan Hunte playing in todays era would be jizzed over by Eddie and Stevo. There is more speed around the ruck as a 10 metre rule effectively allows for more than a few 'scoots.'
    Scoots might be faster. That's about it. That's because we never used to have them.

    Props are not necessarily a million miles fitter. They play substantially less time and they are certainly not faster. Are you telling me that the likes of Perry, Clough, LMS et all run the ball faster and harder than Perelini, Ward, Fairleigh and even lesser individuals such as George Mann and Paul Forber?

    I grant you there was the other end of the scale too such as Stuart Evans and Jonathan Neill but there was far more mobility about some of the props of the past than there is now, and some of them couldn't half get a head of steam up.

    Teams might not tire the same now but that is because they are fitter, not faster.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •