Completions - are they overrated?

[theSportress]

I recently found out that the Canberra Raiders had the best ball control in the NRL but still didn't make the playoffs, while the Roosters had the worst but dominated the regular season. It inspired us to write this.

 

 

[latchford albion]

What's the rational behind not using decoy/block runners?

[Farmduck]

What's the rational behind not using decoy/block runners?

 

My guess would be that if you're trying to maximise the number of passes and angle-changing runners, the decoy/block runners are useless because they are generally offside after the first pass.

[theSportress]

My guess would be that if you're trying to maximise the number of passes and angle-changing runners, the decoy/block runners are useless because they are generally offside after the first pass.

Exactly right. The more passes on a given play the better. Decoy runners are just one more person you can't pass the ball too.

[Tonka]

That's a really interesting piece.  I suspect "time in possession" and "completing sets" wrongly become synonymous. 

 

I wonder how try-scoring sets are classified for these purposes?  i.e. I assume it counts as a complete set, but you do end up with less time in possession - but for the right reason.

 

I do think modern rugby league focuses too much on the collision and wrestle and it's good to see thought being given to other ways to play the game.

[Farmduck]

I read about this "Ipswich style" earlier in the year and watched a few of their games and I'm still on the fence. Here are some random thoughts:

 

- they won the Q Cup and the State Challenge so they must be doing something right

 

- maybe they won because they have better players? 3 guys have already signed with NRL clubs for next year and at least 4 or 5 others have been NRL squad members over the years. Those extra training and coaching hours must give them an advantage over some of the other, more part-time Q Cup teams.

 

- how important was the fact that they were playing against second-tier defences? Would a better-drilled NRL defence simply maintain their shape, advance steadily and let them pass themselves backwards?

 

- does the fatigue factor in their opponents play a large role? Remember they played nearly all their games in Qld with 2.00 or 3.00pm kickoffs. If they played a night game in Canberra or Penrith, would their opponents fatigue as much from the lack of possession?

[Tonka]

I agree in particular with the suggestion that the tougher the defences the more that drives teams towards completion-oriented rugby.  But I still think there is a lot of merit to the idea that you can play clever football that results in more possession rather than focussing on completing sets but get nothing from it.

[Celt]

Good article. Will suggest it to other people.

I honestly believe though, that a team with limited resources can maximise effectiveness via a very high completion rate (and an excellent kick chase).

The cumulative effect of making the opposition tackle, fatigues them on defence, which in turn negates their attacking effectiveness.

Additionally, if you complete your sets, you are statistically more likely to concede possession further down the field, forcing the oppo to 'bring it back further' every time.

It may not hold in the NRL, but at other levels of the game, I suspect it holds far more relevance.

Again.... Good article though. We need more of these.