Jump to content

NRL watching


Recommended Posts

Watching the NRL and I was wondering if their alteration of interchange numbers have had the effect that their proponents predicted ?

 

All sorts of outcomes were put forward at the time but has it worked for them all?

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


No

 

 

Thanks for replying FD

 

Succinct but erudite,

Pithy but schorlarly.

 

Well that's cleared that one up for mine! :biggrin:

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face it 10 down to 8 is simply playing with the concept. 

Yes but they said it would do all sorts of things and I just wondered if it did all, some or none of the promises.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It hasn't had as much effect as predicted. Teams generally delay the first interchanges till the 20-25 minute mark and one prop will usually go to the 30 minute mark. Basically the biggest props just dropped a few Kg and got fitter.

 

The expected extra line breaks and scoring at the back of each half didn't happen. In the first half, your bench players have only been on for 10-15 minutes so they're not fatigued then they get the HT break and go another 20 minutes. Your original starting props can then come back for the last 15-20 after a 30-minute rest.

 

If anything it makes you wonder why we ever had 12 and 10 interchanges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It hasn't had as much effect as predicted. Teams generally delay the first interchanges till the 20-25 minute mark and one prop will usually go to the 30 minute mark. Basically the biggest props just dropped a few Kg and got fitter.

 

The expected extra line breaks and scoring at the back of each half didn't happen. In the first half, your bench players have only been on for 10-15 minutes so they're not fatigued then they get the HT break and go another 20 minutes. Your original starting props can then come back for the last 15-20 after a 30-minute rest.

 

If anything it makes you wonder why we ever had 12 and 10 interchanges.

 

The thing that I found interesting is there still seems to be a culture of the 'run-on side' being superior to the subs. Over here, that was extinguished years ago - certainly by the time of, if not by, McDermott, Va'gana, Anderson and Fielden at Bradford.

 

I've been watching a lot of Canberra this year and the commentators at the weekend were surprised to see Paulo dropped to the bench. Now, I've no opinion on whether he's better than Boyd, but surely these two guys need to be rotated with each other - if they're both on they'll be too vulnerable down the middle and if they're both off, there isn't a big man to make the metres. Therefore, they are both equally valuable, but just need to be on the pitch at different times.

 

It's the same for England - I despair when I see Graham and Hill together. Not because there's a problem with either (they both have it all), but because we'll lose a dimension when they're both spelled at the same time.

People called Romans they go the house

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Canterbury are a good example of a team that have adapted to the reduction in interchanges very well. Many thought they would struggle as they have one of the biggest (if not the biggest) packs in tel he NRL.

Firstly they were visibly a bit leaner and a bit fitter at the start of the year but it is how they use their forwards that is impressive. In Graham and Toleman they have two starting props that can contribute big minutes which means the game time for the rest of the big men can be managed more effectively.

At the weekend they had Klemmer in the second row and Kasiano at lock who are essentially two massive props. Add Williams from the bench and you can rotate these big men to keep them fresh.

They dominated the Brisbane pack who are lighter and more mobile in general (we should probably consider the SOO factor as well in all fairness).

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it also supposed to increase the level of half back/ smaller players influence on the game? Or did I dream that one?

 

I am prone to those wibbly woobly screen moments so this wouldn't be a surprise.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it also supposed to increase the level of half back/ smaller players influence on the game? Or did I dream that one?

I am prone to those wibbly woobly screen moments so this wouldn't be a surprise.

In theory yes but I have the changes are a little too subtle.to have a profound impact on that aspect.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory yes but I have the changes are a little too subtle.to have a profound impact on that aspect.

Is that the same as a NO? I've always had a problem with semantics or was that romantics?

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the same as a NO? I've always had a problem with semantics or was that romantics?

You didn't actually ask a question with no as the appropriate answer.

Yes, the rule change was supposed to have helped the smaller players have more impact on the game but this hasn't transpired.

I can't comment on what you dream of or how wobbly you are.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NRL > Super League

A well reasoned argument.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) You didn't actually ask a question with no as the appropriate answer.

2) Yes, the rule change was supposed to have helped the smaller players have more impact on the game but this hasn't transpired.

3) I can't comment on what you dream of or how wobbly you are.

1) Didn't I? Well Farmduck just said no so I thought I had!

 

2) So essentially it didn't work?

 

3) Aw, go on give us a laugh!

 

The goal was to get to 6 interchanges but they decided to be cautious and go down to 8 initially and judge the impact. I'd imagine they'll move to 6 in another season or two

So the change isn't working so let's do more of it, sounds RL to me.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Canterbury are a good example of a team that have adapted to the reduction in interchanges very well. Many thought they would struggle as they have one of the biggest (if not the biggest) packs in tel he NRL.

Firstly they were visibly a bit leaner and a bit fitter at the start of the year but it is how they use their forwards that is impressive. In Graham and Toleman they have two starting props that can contribute big minutes which means the game time for the rest of the big men can be managed more effectively.

At the weekend they had Klemmer in the second row and Kasiano at lock who are essentially two massive props. Add Williams from the bench and you can rotate these big men to keep them fresh.

They dominated the Brisbane pack who are lighter and more mobile in general (we should probably consider the SOO factor as well in all fairness).

 

The Dogs are the best example. Against Brisbane, Tolman played 80 minutes and Jackson about 70+. Tony Williams played 50+. It helped a lot that they were 20pts up early in the 2nd half and had 57% possession.

 

As long as the team has at least 2 forwards who can play the full 80 they seem to cope. If they also have a 9 who plays the full game then that saves 2 changes on its own. Or they do the trick where a dummy-half comes off the bench but the starting 9 stays on the field as a tackler - Raiders, Titans and Tigers have been doing this. The Raiders even bring Baptiste on as 9 and keep Hodgson out there as a roving 6/7. For Hodgson this is effectively a rest, as he only needs to get involved in 2-3 plays per set.

 

Kasiano was expected to be a "test case" for a lot of pundits but he's dropped a couple of tons and he's actually having a very good season. So is Shannon Boyd at the Raiders, who is 122kg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dogs are the best example. Against Brisbane, Tolman played 80 minutes and Jackson about 70+. Tony Williams played 50+. It helped a lot that they were 20pts up early in the 2nd half and had 57% possession.

 

As long as the team has at least 2 forwards who can play the full 80 they seem to cope. If they also have a 9 who plays the full game then that saves 2 changes on its own. Or they do the trick where a dummy-half comes off the bench but the starting 9 stays on the field as a tackler - Raiders, Titans and Tigers have been doing this. The Raiders even bring Baptiste on as 9 and keep Hodgson out there as a roving 6/7. For Hodgson this is effectively a rest, as he only needs to get involved in 2-3 plays per set.

 

Kasiano was expected to be a "test case" for a lot of pundits but he's dropped a couple of tons and he's actually having a very good season. So is Shannon Boyd at the Raiders, who is 122kg.

So the changes have meant fitter leaner forwards and the teams who have players who do lots of minutes also seem to have benefitted most?

 

The half-back  influence hasn't been affected at all.

 

So has this simply meant coaches who aways used their replacements well are now in their element?

 

All in all it sounds like whoever sold this idea should either be snake oil salesmen or in charge of marketing the game.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.