Jump to content

EagleEyePie

Coach
  • Posts

    793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wigan

Recent Profile Visitors

3,465 profile views

EagleEyePie's Achievements

1.1k

Reputation

  1. I'm struggling to see why anyone would really invest any time (let alone money) into something like that. Where is the fun in a game that is essentially whoever spends ridiculous amounts of money on something ultimately worthless wins. The best thing about Fantasy Premier League is it's a level playing field which makes it competitive. Yes, a lot of people drop out early on if they fall behind but you can also find ways around that. FPL is obviously the benchmark and I don't see how it's so difficult to come up with something similar for rugby league. A little bit more effort made on previous iterations would go a long way. This seems as pointless as rugby league NFT's and a shameless money grab.
  2. I noticed him go down after a tackle and he looked to be struggling. He's been impressive in the two pre-season games so that's a blow. We get Nsemba back at the end of this month if all goes to plan but it means we definitely need to wrap Farrell and Isa in cotton wool until the Penrith game as they are our only remaining back row forwards. Chan's performance at second row against Wakefield was so poor I wouldn't have confidence in him as backup.
  3. Hull looked the better team for about 20 minutes. Piled on the pressure with Pele and Ese'ese causing problems but Wigan defended the line very well, though you'd probably be looking for more from your halfbacks in that situation. Wigan brought Leeming on and the game completely changed. We had more time with the ball and started putting Hull under pressure. Harry Smith was outstanding in attack and defence. Mago, Hill, Dupree and Chan were strong down the middle. In the absence of our two first choice wingers Eckersley and Douglas did well. Obviously the problem for Hull FC was their defence, but I also thought the pairing of Hoy and Brown looked all legs and no hands. There were glimpses of threat when they ran the ball but they had no controlling playmaker in the way Smith was for Wigan.
  4. To be fair to Barrie and Terry, I don't think they got their gig at Sky because of their knowledge of the game and insight. Didn't their break at Sky come through 'Boots n'all' or whatever it was called? Unless I'm misremembering (I was quite young at the time) they used to do some skits on that show and people seemed to find them entertaining and the 'double act' was born. However, that was a long time ago now. I don't think their shtick has lasted and neither of them are particularly good when summarising on their own. Barrie is the better of the two but I don't think either are among the strongest pundits. Jay Rayner is right though, if you're an expert who can't impart their knowledge very well there's no point getting into punditry. To use an example from football, Micah Richards and Roy Keane are popular pundits, especially when together, but it's not their in-depth analysis that stands out, it's that they seem naturally entertaining as personalities. I think that's the sort of thing that Sky were going for when they brought in Baz'n'Tez.
  5. It became a bit farcical once the floodlights started cutting out but I was impressed with what I saw from Wakefield. It was very much a game between a team that looked up to speed and one that didn't. There was a period where Wigan just couldn't stop conceding penalties and compounded it with bad errors. Wakefield were very fluid moving the ball across the field and Wigan got caught out a bit with our back rowers of Walters and Chan not really being able to follow the play. The commentators on Wigan TV had been saying as soon as the floodlights started cutting out that it could be dangerous if it happened when players were going into contact and that's what happened to prompt Chris Kendall to finally call the game off.
  6. Your post seems to be suggesting that concussions aren't a problem that needs addressing but micro sub-concussions are. They are both issues. Just because concussion isn't believed to be the main driver of CTE doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue with serious consequences. Players careers are literally ended by repeated concussions and that's something the sport should be trying to avoid. CTE isn't the only adverse health risk that's an issue. While sub-concussion events might not be able to be measured by iMG's the evidence suggests sub-concussive head impacts cause an increase in risk of CTE so why would reducing all head impacts not make a difference? Also, reducing sub-concussive impacts is also covered by the game time limits being implemented. The cumulative effect of hits (not just concussions) is the main drive behind that rule change. So the aim is to make the game safer on numerous fronts.
  7. This thread is very informative. It's a shame that Twitter (no, I'll never call it 'X') isn't the best for presenting this information and it would be useful if it could be expanded into an article to properly explain these points without a character limit. Also doesn't gloss over the fact that, while the highest instance of concussion is obviously ball carriers being tackled around the head, the second biggest risk is defenders tackling around the hip area, and that low tackles carry twice the concussion risk of tackling between shoulder and abdomen.
  8. If there's a slight concern it's the fact that the squad is very prop heavy. We're not exactly blessed with depth anywhere else except perhaps hooker. Injuries in the backs or at second row could test us.
  9. That link does clear up some of the questions, though doesn't necessarily solve all of the issues. Key games like finals not counting is a good thing, but you're still punished for success if you reach the Challenge Cup semi final and the playoff semi final in a single year because you're then having to miss games. If a player alternates between the forwards and backs how are their minutes calculated. I'm assuming the limit must be flexible so that if an outside back plays some minutes in the pack their limit is essentially reduced in proportion. What would happen if a player was named at hooker, played at hooker in offence but defended in the stand off position, which Rob Burrow and Luke Robinson used to do when they played 9, with a back defending in the middle of the field. If a centre defends in the second row channel are they classed as a back row or a centre? What's to stop players being named in one position but effectively playing in another? There are also other potential issues. For example, these rules basically have no impact if you sign a player from the NRL for 1 year. You're allowed to exceed the limit if you make up for it the following year but if you're only on a 1 year contract before returning to the NRL you can play every minute of every game as a forward without issue. You could argue that's gaming the system. Also, if you're a young forward like Junior Nsemba at Wigan, where's the incentive to remain in Super League when you know for the next 3 years you'll never be able to make your preferred position your own without the club also needing another player of the same standard for the same position. Why not just go to the NRL and play every week (maybe for a feeder club, but you're playing regularly). Likewise, is it worth Wigan keeping such a promising young player when you know you'll need another player of that quality to cover the minutes for the next 3 years. Why not just sign a player over the age of 22 who you can get more minutes out of. I should point out I'm in favour of the limits from a player welfare perspective, but I think we've got to be careful when we consider the effects it might have. A reduction in the number of games in a season seems like the obvious option but there's no appetite for that. Could the limits on playing time force more young players out of the competition.
  10. He does have a point when it comes to match/minute limits on players. It all depends on what the limit will be set at and how they go about it. There's the potential for it to massively compromise sporting integrity though. If they just set a fixed limit then how do they avoid unfairly penalising clubs that are successful in the Challenge Cup? Imagine the disadvantage for a club if they played a World Club Challenge, reached the Challenge Cup final and then went all the way to the Grand Final. Add in injuries during the season and you could potentially get to a situation where you only have limited available players and having to choose between playing some in every remaining game to stay competitive and have a shot at reaching the Grand Final but knowing if no player returns from injury you couldn't play them in the playoffs. Or they'd have to leave those players out of games and use academy players which surely carries its own player welfare issues. You could have the farcical scenario of a club playing a Grand Final knowing 4 of their players are 40 minutes from the limit, suffering injuries during the game and then having to play 10-20 minutes of a final with less than 13 players because you can't interchange players who have reached their limit. And then of course there's the issue of international call ups. No club is going to release their players for a mid-season international if it means it impact their game limit. Every player is going to prioritise ensuring they could be available for a final at the end of the year over playing a mid-season international. And what happens if a player reaches their game limit and is then selected for an international? Apparently the limits are going to be lower for players under the age of 22, so what impact will that have on player development? Why risk having an outstanding 20 year old forward in your team when you know you're going to have to carefully manage their game time for another 2 years. It's just easier to sign an older player. Obviously there's a potential benefit here. If you introduce a limit of game time there's incentive to reduce the number of fixtures in a season. I'm fairly certain that this is the intention of the limit because they know clubs wouldn't voluntarily reduce the number of games so you essentially force them into a compromise - minute managing and potential chaos or limit the number of matches. The downside is it will mean clubs making less money through matchdays per year and it's probably the fans (higher prices) and players (lower wages) that would suffer if we end up cutting 5 games from the season.
  11. I'm not sure the rule changes necessarily mean there will be less 'wrestling' in the tackle. If anything surely it's going to limit impact (due to the risks involved) and make technique more important. It's hard to know for sure how teams would adjust to the new interpretations but surely the changes made to speed up the ruck put a greater emphasis on 'wrestling'. as it's in the defenders best interests to keep the player from going to ground until they are in an advantageous position. With the tackle height change it's still possible to wrap up the ball but it might mean players have to develop ways of hitting below armpit height initially and then moving to clamp the ball or control the ball carrying arm. I could be wrong. I think the changes should definitely prevent the subtle techniques and manipulations that happen on the floor but when it comes to 'wrestling' in the tackle I'd imagine there'd be a greater emphasis and a lot more focus on controlling and manipulating the body position of the ball carrier because 'impact' will automatically carry a greater risk with the new interpretations on contact with the head.
  12. I don't know why they didn't just have a live demonstration using players or ex-players and then an official to explain what they are looking for. That way they can also simulate what might occur if a player dips or falls into a tackle or various other scenarios at a speed and clarity that's easy to see. The official could talk people through it.
  13. I've just read that rugby union in their rule changes have 'encouraged ball carriers to avoid late dipping'. How that actually works in practice I don't know. In rugby league a lot of player rely on late footwork at the line - which often means dipping towards the foot they step off. Dipping into tackles is also a perfectly valid technique at present. I don't object to rule changes because they are obviously requited for insurance purposes, but I'm concerned about how much pressure is going to be put on refs to make very difficult judgement calls. It's a lot easier to see a tackle that's above shoulder height than it is to spot one that is above armpit height (as the RFL's example video demonstrates. Some of their examples aren't actually above armpit height). If they then try to limit players dipping into tackles to gain an unfair advantage that opens up another massive grey area of interpretation and I don't know how that could be effectively policed. Penalising ball carriers for dipping into tackles could descend into farce, but if you don't then players may regularly dip into tackles and negate the benefits of altering the limit on tackle height. I'd be interested to know much time has been spent observing the game played under these interpretations. Surely there must have been a large number of trial games played under these new interpretations to test the practicality. It would be good to know the results in terms of the issues they presented for players and officials.
  14. If you're a ball carrier you just have to dip low into the tackle. The legal tackle area will be massively reduced to the point where you're likely to win a penalty, if not you're probably hitting the ground quickly front first, so with the change to the rules in the ruck it means as soon as you hit the floor the tacklers have to release.
  15. Always been a big fan of Shorrocks. Massively underrated and played a big part in the season despite not making the 17 at the end of the year. Really needs to play 13 regularly as it's by far his best position. He was unlucky this year that when he did get a chance to play there he was moved because Smithies was struggling to be effective at second row. He's a really good ball player so he should suit an expansive style of play and his work rate in defence is exceptional.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.