Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: The Modern Game

  1. #1
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    24
    Rep Power
    0

    Default The Modern Game

    So whats everyone's thoughts on the modern game of RL?
    My view using single words i think sum up the state of the game these days:

    Dull
    Methodical
    Predictable
    Robotic
    Percentages
    Attrition

    Why?
    Teams are now coached to limit errors and play to rigid structures.
    Wheres the off the cuff, play what you see style?

    I've been watching some of Skys re-runs of games from days gone by. Wow- that's RL as it should be played.
    Yes - different era but is the modern game a better product:

    1. To watch as a spectator
    2. To play as a player.

    I know what I think.
    Comments welcome.

  2. #2
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    44
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guardianreader View Post
    So whats everyone's thoughts on the modern game of RL?
    My view using single words i think sum up the state of the game these days:

    Dull
    Methodical
    Predictable
    Robotic
    Percentages
    Attrition

    Why?
    Teams are now coached to limit errors and play to rigid structures.
    Wheres the off the cuff, play what you see style?

    I've been watching some of Skys re-runs of games from days gone by. Wow- that's RL as it should be played.
    Yes - different era but is the modern game a better product:

    1. To watch as a spectator
    2. To play as a player.

    I know what I think.
    Comments welcome.

  3. #3
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,647
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    It’s undeniable that the game has changed, in some ways for the better and others probably less so. That said, it’s still excellent at its very best and pretty poor at its ‘worst’, for want of a better word, as it always has been and probably always will be.

    I do think Rugby League fans are quick to be very extreme about the sport though. It’s either “the greatest game”, a phrase I cannot stand, or it’s “terrible and not as good as eras gone-by”.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  4. #4
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk The Wee Waa Womble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Harrogate
    Age
    33
    Posts
    7,965
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    I think the thing that ••••es me off most is the way the players are devolving into football style antics. Milking ‘injuries’, trying to con penalties (especially at the play of the ball) and the way players talk and even shout at the ref now. Saints have been guilty of all this just as much as every other team and it’s disgraceful. The referees might be crap but that’s no excuse.
    Forwards win games. The backs decide by how much.

  5. #5
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    44
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    yes ur right dull methodical predicable robotic shite .I too have been watching re runs and yes wow is the only word rugby as we used to love after nearly 50 yrs of watching saints this is shite you won’t get many reply’s being a noobie don’t upset the redvee mafia led by mr

  6. #6
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,522
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Yes it's a lot duller and predictable than it used to be. We always follow the nrl but are always a good few years behind them. This and the fact that teams that throw the ball around don't tend to win things now. Look at Cas and Wire under Tony Smith,never got the grand final results that they needed even though they could throw the ball around.

  7. #7
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Agree with everything you say. like everyone on this site I will never stop supporting Saints but these days its just because its my home town and it's in my DNA, and I can't imagine life without supporting the club, but can anyone honestly say we watch the game now because of the way it's played, the day of the constant off load, the half back kicking over the top of the defence to regather the ball are gone, probably forever, at least we have the memories of the good old days Sadly some of the younger supporters will one day think these were the good old days.

  8. #8
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bury
    Posts
    1,847
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guardianreader View Post
    So whats everyone's thoughts on the modern game of RL?
    My view using single words i think sum up the state of the game these days:

    Dull
    Methodical
    Predictable
    Robotic
    Percentages
    Attrition

    Why?
    Teams are now coached to limit errors and play to rigid structures.
    Wheres the off the cuff, play what you see style?

    I've been watching some of Skys re-runs of games from days gone by. Wow- that's RL as it should be played.
    Yes - different era but is the modern game a better product:

    1. To watch as a spectator
    2. To play as a player.

    I know what I think.
    Comments welcome.
    spot on with your assessment and we are one of the culprits with our style of play

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I was really looking forward to the start of the season same as everyone else at a guess but to be honest I'm already past the point of wanting to watch anyone other than us play although I did enjoy the Leeds V Cas game. So far we've beaten 2 pony sides without breaking sweat and huffed and puffed against Leeds reserves.

    Woolf earned himself a clean slate last year but we are seriously one boring team to watch, but to make it worse, there's no need for us to be. We have the best attacking threequarters in the league and point blank refuse to use them for anything else other than starting sets. It's starting to become really predictable like we were under Cunningham, constantly turning back inside, refusing to offload or anything else that may be deemed a risk. It just so happens we have better players now that can execute the grind better but only the results make it any more bearable. I get he's only here for a certain period and he's basically selling himself to the NRL with how he sets his team up now but the club really need to question this next time we recruit a new manager because it took Holbrook coming in to get fans back onside after KC with his pearls of wisdom as both a coach and in the media. I certainly don't want to feel like that again about the club but if he carries on playing this anti rugby we'll soon get found out and there will be no sympathy when we do.

  10. #10
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk fishy3005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    12,154
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Hull KR played some open rugby last year. True, they rarely won but then again they don’t have a squad like ours. Im not binning off Woolf just yet, but i sometimes wonder if Tony Smith would be a good match for us.
    screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies

  11. #11
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Blobbynator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,220
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    The game is alot more structured and defensive than it used to be. It was a better watch 15-20 years ago but defences were weaker then so there were more gaps and openings. Players are coached to play percentages and to set plays and it's not often you see much off the cuff play anymore, especially in big games where teams keep it tight and try to play in their opponents half.
    Quote Originally Posted by Despondent Dave
    Blobby is a man of style, panache and impeccable taste

  12. #12
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    There is a healthy balance somewhere between exciting off the cuff RL and well structured effective percentage based RL. I’ve always been an advocate of horses for courses. If you’re playing Wigan away and they are killing the game you can’t throw it about and take stupid risks and so playing the percentages has its merits, and I think the same can be said for Cup Finals, Grand Finals etc.

    The problem is when this style becomes the default norm for the entirety of the season, because most weeks we simply don’t need to play that way against overmatched teams in games that we should win regardless. The 25-0 against Hull KR was a great example of us chugging it down the middle because we now treat such a style as our default. Too many people nowadays think that because other teams play a down the middle style that we have to match it, but other teams adopt this against us because they know they can’t beat us with flair or creativity.

    It was sensible for Leeds to do it yesterday for example given those they had missing, but why do we feel the need to play down to their level and get involved in an arm wrestle just because they have asked for one? We have the best pair of wingers in the game, the best pair we’ve had since Albert and Gardner (some will say better) and these two lads create tries from nothing. We split Leeds open quite easily on the half dozen occasions we gave the ball width, but for long periods we ignored them. We had numerous sets in their 20 where we didn’t deviate from a drop pass and a forward trying to barge through, and it is predictable to defend against. If we were outmatched I’d see the need to do it, but nine weeks out of ten we are the better team on the park with the better strike weapons outside, so it is baffling.

    The arguments about defences being better are valid, and there is a certain enjoyment in watching us defend with vigour and discipline. Keeping the other lot out is just as important of course, and under Woolf we seem to relish this side of the game, and that’s fine with me. But it’s come at the expense of relishing the joys of attacking rugby at times, and I think we have to accept that this is what we are now. We are a well organised disciplined structured side that will be really hard to beat and will likely win nearly every week by grinding teams down because we’re better than them. My argument is that we were better than everyone else to begin with, so what have we gained from conceding 6 points less a game? That’s an argument I suppose, and people differ on the merits of us being better defensively.

    Where I draw the line is people saying that we are dull and unadventurous because a certain player is missing or because the other side didn’t let us play RL. I hear that a lot on here and it simply doesn’t wash with me. If we are saying we couldn’t rip Hull KR open the other week because Coote wasn’t playing or we couldn’t play it around Leeds’ second string backs yesterday because they didn’t let us we are making excuses for our coach showing a lack of willingness to prioritise such play. We aren’t Wakefield, having to make the most of an average squad and playing a style to contend with what’s in front of us. We are the champion side in this competition, and we are better than this.

    Play the percentages at Wembley and Old Trafford or when we’re down the road at Wigan, but most weeks it isn’t necessary. But, I won’t give Woolf grief for this because he was appointed to coach this team as he wanted to. He has done nothing wrong, he has us winning games the way he wants us to win games, and he doesn’t care a jot if we are a pale shade of the sides of the past in terms of our creativity. That isn’t his problem. His problem is winning trophies and landing an NRL job, and he’s doing a good job. It’s just that we didn’t really need him or his tactics to win trophies, and we made a bad decision after Holbrook had reignited us as a team. We need to make a better decision once Woolf disappears IMO.

  13. #13
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guardianreader View Post
    So whats everyone's thoughts on the modern game of RL?
    My view using single words i think sum up the state of the game these days:

    Dull
    Methodical
    Predictable
    Robotic
    Percentages
    Attrition

    Why?
    Teams are now coached to limit errors and play to rigid structures.
    Wheres the off the cuff, play what you see style?

    I've been watching some of Skys re-runs of games from days gone by. Wow- that's RL as it should be played.
    Yes - different era but is the modern game a better product:

    1. To watch as a spectator
    2. To play as a player.

    I know what I think.
    Comments welcome.
    I agree. I don't think any of our three games so far have been worth watching, even though I've watched them all so far. It's shame really because I think we have the players to play some scintillating rugby. You have to say, though, that Woolfe has made this team mentally tougher. I think two years ago Leeds would have beaten us in the sort of contest we had yesterday. I want to see strong defence and free flowing attack. I think half backs should be more free to play of the cuff. Paasi was a revelation yesterday.

    Im not looking forward to future matches now and I will probablyly give the next one a miss since Sky Now costs £10 per match and that is a fair old lay out to be bored.

  14. #14
    In The South Stand Tabasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rivington Road, St Helens
    Posts
    2,903
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Style of play is an interesting issue where there is no right answer as ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I’ve been a regular attender at games, both home and away, for some 40 years; with the exception of the latter months of the Cunningham era, I have enjoyed most games. Watching the various “retro” games on Sky, however, has made me realise that defences were largely woeful in those days, players were at a much lower level of fitness and general skills were poorer with a few noticeable exceptions. It was, therefore, easier to try to play a more attacking style, safe in the knowledge that defensive gaps were plentiful while possession could often be recovered without cost in the event that mistakes were made.

    Certainly the first 10 years of Super League were largely entertaining, due in no small part to the move to summer rugby allied with the game going full-time with the consequent increase in fitness and general skills, plus the obvious resurgence of Saints as possible trophy winners. That said, however, there were many games where blow-out scores resulted, both in Saints’ favour and against, and with hindsight I did find many of these boring.

    The games that stand out for me are largely those with close scores and possibly only the odd moment of brilliance - such as the “wide to west” victory over Bradford. Equally, the late Cunningham score to defeat Warrington is unforgettable whereas most of the close but high scoring victories against them are tinged with some dissatisfaction regarding our inability to stop them scoring so often.

    Free flowing movements leading to tries can be exciting but their attraction to me diminishes as their frequency increases (as is said, constant sunshine leads to desert). As a consequence, therefore, I find myself drawn to games where defence stands out, chances are at a premium and the few tries that are scored involve some exceptional skill. Looking at yesterday’s game, our tries each involved stand-out elements including good ball movement across the pitch and killer passes to provide the scope for great finishes against robust defending. Sadly, we let ourselves down with our goal line defence for each of their tries, so the game was not a classic in my eyes but I nevertheless enjoyed it far more than if we had run out winners by 40+ points involving non-stop, flowing attack which the opposition could not contain.

  15. #15
    In The South Stand Tez the Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,502
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guardianreader View Post
    So whats everyone's thoughts on the modern game of RL?
    My view using single words i think sum up the state of the game these days:

    Dull
    Methodical
    Predictable
    Robotic
    Percentages
    Attrition

    Why?
    Teams are now coached to limit errors and play to rigid structures.
    Wheres the off the cuff, play what you see style?.
    I probably disagree a bit to be fair, I think the game now is all about looking up at the defence and playing what you see. We probably see less obvious examples of it now in terms of short kicks over the top, late offloads and individual bits of skill but players are coached to look up at the defence and make decisions off that.

    One easy example might be if a team is 30 m out from the opposition line and they get tackled somewhere in line with the centre of the posts. Most full backs and teams will defend that by putting five defenders on the right side of the ptb and five defenders on the left side of the ptb. However if the 1, 6, 7 and 9 look up at the defence and see that the defensive team has put six defenders on one side and only four defenders on the other side, they’ll attack the side where they’ve only put four defenders.

    We scored our first try yesterday because Leeds put four defenders on the short side when maybe they only really needed three so they had one less defender on the open side which we exploited.

    The good teams and the good players are at that level because they can look up and spot those opportunities. Maybe people find that more boring to watch than brilliant offloads and great bits of skill but I don’t know if the game is robotic and rigid.
    Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
    V

  16. #16
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    In theory, I prefer open attacking rugby but having said that, I really enjoyed the Grand Final, which was the ultimate display of conservative game plans and excellent defence. That said, I wouldn’t like to watch too many games like that.

  17. #17
    Got A Season Ticket mrsimit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    113
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The last couple of years of Eric Hughes' team and the first 10 years of Super League was the most entertaining/exciting period for me. I'm very grateful to Youtube for giving me the opportunity to remind myself what an offload looks like. I still enjoy watching Saints but the game in general is dull as dishwater most of the time. I think the obsession with flat attacking lines is a major contributor to unadventurous playing styles too.
    Sent from my keyboard using fingers.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I think the reality is defences have improved but there has'nt really been a marked improvement in attack over the last decade. Most teams are still playing much the same way; the full back round the back on the wedge being the prime example. I once alluded to football going through a similar spell when the dull 4-5-1 was seen as a panacea to sneak points away from home.

    The big problem with the game at the moment for me is the fascination with one out exit sets. It does'nt take a supercoach to can basically call many plays of all SL teams inside their own half. Winger 1 drives it in and looks for a quick PTB, winger 2 comes off the other wing and repeats and then finally a centre gets a crash ball and goes route 1. It would take an impressive conversationalist to convince anyone that's entertaining. Its a bit of a blight on the game for me.

    I must say that the rugby on Saturday was particularly low quality. We're moaning that the game isn't adventurous enough at times and yet there was lost ball all over the place and passes into touch. Its a major difference between NRL and Super League.

  19. #19
    Starting A Programme Collection Roger Moore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Warrington
    Posts
    581
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    I might be in the minority here, but I think you earn the right to throw the ball about by setting a dominant platform with your forwards. This invariably means carting it down the middle and overpowering the opposition. This seems to be Woofe's go to style. I have no problem with that. My concern is that once you've earned the right, then it is time to start using the flair, we obviously possess, but seem reluctant to use. I'm hoping that is because it is early in the season and have yet to get or combinations set. I'm hoping that once we get our 2nd row/centre pairings sorted and Coote regains his form things will improve.
    Loyal and true, not a glory hunter.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The RL authorities got it right in enforcing the rule where defenders had to get off the tackled player quickly. Then got it wrong when reversing that and allowing defenders to slow the PTB. They probably didn't realise how coaches like Brown and Maguire would take that and exploit it to such a degree by building entire gameplans to buy their defences even more time to set. Other teams had little choice but to copy.

    Fast-forward a few years and we have the stunted, conservative game we see now. Yes, there's the odd game where two lower-table teams less obsessed with defence (like HKR) are decently matched, and Wire do sometimes play more expansively. But overall, attrition is the key. We played one of the most attacking teams last week and nilled them. What is the point of focusing on attack when the rules mean that defences always have the upper hand, the cheat-code, all the aces?

    I know some purists love this, but we need to remember we're in the entertainment industry. For years after taking over the TV rights, Sky enjoyed strong viewing figures for RL, picking up a lot of casual viewers, but these figures have dwindled over the past decade or so. Coincidence? I think not.

    Last Grand Final was tense and, as we were emotionally invested in the result, we were captivated - and that ending was pure Hollywood. But, looking at it objectively, it was a boring game. A number of posters on here commented that casual viewers they knew who they'd implored to watch it, we're bored and some turned off at half time.

    Is it any wonder Sky aren't offering us a good TV deal? Is it any wonder we can't attract blue chip sponsors? Is it any wonder more and more actual fans feel they still go to games more out of a sense of duty than enjoyment?

    It's no good criticising lack of marketing and poor media recognition without having a product on the pitch that is exciting and gets hearts racing with multiple breaks, great passing, loads of tries, disrupted defences, speedy players hurtling through gaps, etc.

    The focus of the game's administrators needs to be on finding rule tweaks that lead to disrupted defences, which allows players to play expansive rugby.

    I don't think for a moment they will. But it'd be f*cling typical if they did at a time when we've gone full-on build our game around the defence. You'd have to feel gutted for Roby who, as he showed in 2006 & 2007 was probably the best exploiter of a quick PTB and disorganised defence ever - with Cunningham not far behind. A part of me dies feel that, after we swept all before us in 2006 and the emergence of Roby, reigning us back was part of the thinking by the RFL in allowing the slowing of the PTB.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    The RL authorities got it right in enforcing the rule where defenders had to get off the tackled player quickly. Then got it wrong when reversing that and allowing defenders to slow the PTB. They probably didn't realise how coaches like Brown and Maguire would take that and exploit it to such a degree by building entire gameplans to buy their defences even more time to set. Other teams had little choice but to copy.

    Fast-forward a few years and we have the stunted, conservative game we see now. Yes, there's the odd game where two lower-table teams less obsessed with defence (like HKR) are decently matched, and Wire do sometimes play more expansively. But overall, attrition is the key. We played one of the most attacking teams last week and nilled them. What is the point of focusing on attack when the rules mean that defences always have the upper hand, the cheat-code, all the aces?

    I know some purists love this, but we need to remember we're in the entertainment industry. For years after taking over the TV rights, Sky enjoyed strong viewing figures for RL, picking up a lot of casual viewers, but these figures have dwindled over the past decade or so. Coincidence? I think not.

    Last Grand Final was tense and, as we were emotionally invested in the result, we were captivated - and that ending was pure Hollywood. But, looking at it objectively, it was a boring game. A number of posters on here commented that casual viewers they knew who they'd implored to watch it, we're bored and some turned off at half time.

    Is it any wonder Sky aren't offering us a good TV deal? Is it any wonder we can't attract blue chip sponsors? Is it any wonder more and more actual fans feel they still go to games more out of a sense of duty than enjoyment?

    It's no good criticising lack of marketing and poor media recognition without having a product on the pitch that is exciting and gets hearts racing with multiple breaks, great passing, loads of tries, disrupted defences, speedy players hurtling through gaps, etc.

    The focus of the game's administrators needs to be on finding rule tweaks that lead to disrupted defences, which allows players to play expansive rugby.

    I don't think for a moment they will. But it'd be f*cling typical if they did at a time when we've gone full-on build our game around the defence. You'd have to feel gutted for Roby who, as he showed in 2006 & 2007 was probably the best exploiter of a quick PTB and disorganised defence ever - with Cunningham not far behind. A part of me dies feel that, after we swept all before us in 2006 and the emergence of Roby, reigning us back was part of the thinking by the RFL in allowing the slowing of the PTB.
    We werent pkaying champagne stuff in 2006. It was more that thE squad then was a distance ahead of anything in the League. Anderson was no Millward. DD has picked up on this before; 2006 for me was the start of the game becoming overly structured. Its over romanticising it to say that the game was brilliant back then. It wasnt.

  22. #22
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    We werent pkaying champagne stuff in 2006. It was more that thE squad then was a distance ahead of anything in the League. Anderson was no Millward. DD has picked up on this before; 2006 for me was the start of the game becoming overly structured. Its over romanticising it to say that the game was brilliant back then. It wasnt.
    Yep, I've tried to say the same as well a few times. 2006 was year zero for the modern modern game here, it changed things as it was the first time a team dominated the comp playing in a style that we are familiar with now. Before then it certainly existed, and Bradford tried to play a structured style at times, but 06 was the year it had the ultimate success across the board. Of course, play that way with a team containing Wellens, Lyon, Pryce, Long, Cunningham, Roby, Sculthorpe etc and you will still look pretty marvellous alot of the time because those players all had the ability to change a game and do magical stuff within a more structured system, but what classic games do we look back on in that season that stand the test of time? There are loads of games from the Millward era that are talked about on here, but that 06 season for me had very few, we just stomped over teams methodically, including the GF which in my time on this forum is the least talked about of our GF wins by a mile.

    I remember one of my mates who I met at university in 2001, he was a Greek lad and he watched alot of RL in the pubs with me and developed a love of the game. I brought him over for games in that period and he loved it. He moved back home but I ended up sharing a house with him when I moved to Manchester in 2005 and again he couldn't wait to get back to KR to watch Saints and RL. 2005 he loved it, loved the games, really into it but he told me on a number of occasions that 2006 wasn't as exciting and he then started to decline offers to come over for the games that season. Maybe it was just that the games were easier, but I think the overall game interested him less as we turned from what we were at the turn of the century to what we became under DA.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    We werent pkaying champagne stuff in 2006. It was more that thE squad then was a distance ahead of anything in the League. Anderson was no Millward. DD has picked up on this before; 2006 for me was the start of the game becoming overly structured. Its over romanticising it to say that the game was brilliant back then. It wasnt.

    I've not claimed we were playing champagne stuff in 2006, and think you're missing the point I'm making. I said that Roby in 2006 and 2007 showed he was the best exploiter of a quick PTB and disorganised defence ever - with Cunningham not far behind.

    I'd absolutely agree the games under Millward were the most exciting period to watch. I've said this many times on here.

    (although I do also believe that in terms of a successful formula, that team in 2006 married clinical defence with amazing attack - yes, we had a dazzling array of amazing attacking players, but also the focus onto defence wasn't fully in place; I think we played entertaining rugby and scored scintillating tries. I guess some excitement was taken out of it because we were too dominant, not the quality of attacking rugby we played. But that's just my opinion - and isn't really relevant to this debate)

    Whatever the merits or otherwise of Anderson's tactics, I still argue that the biggest turning point for the game in this country in terms of playing style was the move away from enforcing a quick release of the tackled player and allowing defenders several seconds more to hold down (and eventually wrestle) the tackled player, as well as relaxing the enforcement of a big 10m defensive line.

    Perhaps other teams would have sought to adopt a similarly structured defence that we did - but would that have been anything like as effective or smothering without the authorities making the big change? Absolutely not. That has only been able to happen because in every tackle the tacklers are allowed to hold down the tackled player for far longer. Certainly our defence in that 2006-2008 period was nothing like as structured, or our defensive line as solidly set, as all defences these days are.

    If you weren't thrilled with the Saints playing style in 2006-2008, then what the authorities did with the rule change was give every other club a kind of 'cheat code' to not just copy that but put it on steroids, something that made having a structured defence to strangle the attacking flair of the opposition much, much easier to implement. Every other team adopted it over the subsequent few years, with some - Brown's Huddersfield and Maguire's piescum - stretching the rules even further with the wrestle, turtling, the choreographed pile-on to get 3/4 players into every tackle before peeling off one at a time, etc.

    Every tackle now takes an age. Every defensive line is properly set. Because of the interminable extra several seconds, defending teams are able to rotate the duty of a player or two flying out the line to target the first receiver; most times the ref isn't looking or chooses not to penalise.

    The result is a boring, one-out, arm-wrestle, stop-start game of organised defences smothering any possibility of attack, resulting in players just running into a wall of other players for near enough 80 minutes.

    I bet the current period of the game (last several years) has seen a) the fewest clean breaks per game; and b) the highest proportion of tries in any period of the game that are scored from kicks - which, most of the time, are just a lottery, a coin toss to hope that a defending player trying to field the kick drops it or mistimes their jump or an attacking player makes a particularly good leap.
    Last edited by Webbo Again; 12th April 2021 at 11:47.

  24. #24
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Loads of fair points above from Webbo, and kind of gets to the same place I am from a different angle I think.

    Wane spoke at the weekend about our regular season game with Wigan and how great it was that we went 20-odd minutes at the start without the ball going out of play. I remember the Sky lot drooling over it but for me it was just two teams completing sets in a very conservative manner and feeling each other out, it wasn't particularly exciting. I don't want that to be the benchmark for what RL is all about, despite the amazing effort those players put in that night.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    I've not claimed we were playing champagne stuff in 2006, and think you're missing the point I'm making. I said that Roby in 2006 and 2007 showed he was the best exploiter of a quick PTB and disorganised defence ever - with Cunningham not far behind.

    I'd absolutely agree the games under Millward were the most exciting period to watch. I've said this many times on here.

    (although I do also believe that in terms of a successful formula, that team in 2006 married clinical defence with amazing attack - yes, we had a dazzling array of amazing attacking players, but also the focus onto defence wasn't fully in place; I think we played entertaining rugby and scored scintillating tries. I guess some excitement was taken out of it because we were too dominant, not the quality of attacking rugby we played. But that's just my opinion - and isn't really relevant to this debate)

    Whatever the merits or otherwise of Anderson's tactics, I still argue that the biggest turning point for the game in this country in terms of playing style was the move away from enforcing a quick release of the tackled player and allowing defenders several seconds more to hold down (and eventually wrestle) the tackled player, as well as relaxing the enforcement of a big 10m defensive line.

    Perhaps other teams would have sought to adopt a similarly structured defence that we did - but would that have been anything like as effective or smothering without the authorities making the big change? Absolutely not. That has only been able to happen because in every tackle the tacklers are allowed to hold down the tackled player for far longer. Certainly our defence in that 2006-2008 period was nothing like as structured, or our defensive line as solidly set, as all defences these days are.

    If you weren't thrilled with the Saints playing style in 2006-2008, then what the authorities did with the rule change was give every other club a kind of 'cheat code' to not just copy that but put it on steroids, something that made having a structured defence to strangle the attacking flair of the opposition much, much easier to implement. Every other team adopted it over the subsequent few years, with some - Brown's Huddersfield and Maguire's piescum - stretching the rules even further with the wrestle, turtling, the choreographed pile-on to get 3/4 players into every tackle before peeling off one at a time, etc.

    Every tackle now takes an age. Every defensive line is properly set. Because of the interminable extra several seconds, defending teams are able to rotate the duty of a player or two flying out the line to target the first receiver; most times the ref isn't looking or chooses not to penalise.

    The result is a boring, one-out, arm-wrestle, stop-start game of organised defences smothering any possibility of attack, resulting in players just running into a wall of other players for near enough 80 minutes.

    I bet the current period of the game (last several years) has seen a) the fewest clean breaks per game; and b) the highest proportion of tries in any period of the game that are scored from kicks - which, most of the time, are just a lottery, a coin toss to hope that a defending player trying to field the kick drops it or mistimes their jump or an attacking player makes a particularly good leap.
    To be honest I don't mind the current leeway defenders get now. There was nothing that got on my wick more than:
    A.) Attackers being allowed to surrender in a tackle and sneak a quick PTB because defenders were forced to roll awaty.
    B.) Someone being dominated in a tackle and the defenders again being compelled to get up far too quickly.

    In both situations the attacking players have'nt earned any right whatsoever for a quick PTB. In the early stages of super league the likes of bog average players like Anthony Gibbons at Leeds were looking like world beaters because they could do the uber-boring scoot from dummy half.

    I agree that 2008 ish was awful; you could add the cannonball tackle into the list you mentioned.

    The challenge for the modern game is to find a way to redress the balance between attack and defence. Even Swinton were holding Warrington for a large period of time yesterday and likewise, Halifax when they played us in the Challenge Cup. Teams know what is coming at them and its really easy for a fan to call a set. As I've said before, trying to convince anyone that 3 tackles on an exit set is enthralling rugby is a hard sell.

Posting Permissions

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