Jump to content

Brian McDermott’s Four Quarters Idea


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

If you want to encourage teams to take risks then you need to change the rules to allow for that

Now we are geting somewhere, the game needs to be more entertaining it is becoming stiffled, very few things happen away from the 'norm'.

The rules have been tampered with for a good few years now, some good some not so, but the evolution process has not given us a better spectacle to watch, and for me as I have expressed numerous times is that to many interchanges allowed is the root evil to arresting expansive football.

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I took the first of those coaching courses back in '85 when they were first initiated the head honcho was Phil Larder who was the RFL Director of Coaching assisted by Frank Wilson and Clive Griffiths and very enjoyable courses they were.

I will always remember the instruction at the outset that the course was designed to make training drills/practice and subsequently the fundamental skills of running, passing, and tackling more adept, BUT the emphasis on game tactics and management was down to the individual coach, Mr Larder said that if he trained coaches to repeat game plans it would make for a 'stalemate' as every team would be doing the same, coaches he said had to be as individual as the player's, it is OK he said learning of what other teams do, but it is the responsibility of a coach to explore new avenues and improve on what they have learned that is the only way we will improve both as a game and as a spectacle to watch.

Somehow, I think has you say that philosophy has been lost somewhere along the way, individuality is a very rare commodity in modern day tactics.

 

The glut over the years of overseas Coaches has put paid to a lot of individuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not arguing for what I want to watch. Simply what will happen because winning comes first and it always will do.

If you create rules which mean players get fatigued, coaches create tactics so that their players are less fatigued. 

Exactly, the coaches coach to the rules in the extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I took the first of those coaching courses back in '85 when they were first initiated the head honcho was Phil Larder who was the RFL Director of Coaching assisted by Frank Wilson and Clive Griffiths and very enjoyable courses they were.

I will always remember the instruction at the outset that the course was designed to make training drills/practice and subsequently the fundamental skills of running, passing, and tackling more adept, BUT the emphasis on game tactics and management was down to the individual coach, Mr Larder said that if he trained coaches to repeat game plans it would make for a 'stalemate' as every team would be doing the same, coaches he said had to be as individual as the player's, it is OK he said learning of what other teams do, but it is the responsibility of a coach to explore new avenues and improve on what they have learned that is the only way we will improve both as a game and as a spectacle to watch.

Somehow, I think has you say that philosophy has been lost somewhere along the way, individuality is a very rare commodity in modern day tactics.

 

Phil Larder was a loss to the game in that respect.  Things stepped backwards when Kear took over.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

How to create less fatigue? Tactics that prioritise ball retention. While I have the ball I'm not tackling.

How to create a more attacking game? Deprioritize fatigue (quarters, 60minute game, more (relatively) subs), force attacking play (fewer tackles) and depeioritize possession (more contests for the ball and less reliance on fatigue)

I do get the sense that those who "like the old way" dislike nines, which is ironic considering nines offers all the elements of the play they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I do get the sense that those who "like the old way" dislike nines, which is ironic considering nines offers all the elements of the play they want.

You got me in one Tommy, I dislike both 9's and 7's immensely, but I don't get your familiarity with the 13 a side game, chalk and cheese comes to mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You got me in one Tommy, I dislike both 9's and 7's immensely, but I don't get your familiarity with the 13 a side game, chalk and cheese comes to mind

I don't understand it Harry, the game was better in the 70s because it wasn't all big forwards, defences were less organised, players could show individual brilliance as there is more space and greater fatigue and in general more difference in tactics, yet everything I've watched of nines is just that? Yes its not 80 minutes of rugby but in the modern age where most players are so much fitter than they ever were its probably the closest we're ever going to get to that style of play. Sides like Wales, and indeed England on day 2, that went for a conservative and arguably more modern approach were totally taken apart by teams who played heads up rugby.

Sevens I agree is in effect a totally different game, but 9s just about retains enough rugby for me. 

Perhaps by following the games being shortened idea due to fixture pileup this year, we may see a similarly attack focussed approach.

Edited by Tommygilf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Not for anyone else, A they're tedious and boring and B, if you don't know what you're doing (which is the vast amount of RL players) they are incredibly dangerous these days.

I say that as someone who has played in an RU team for over 10 years in virtually every position. The last thing RL needs is "proper scrums.

Oh and the idea that scrums are even a contest in RU now is a joke at the pro level especially.

They wouldn't be tedious and boring with a zero tolerance policy re scrums collapsing, wheeling and the like and the culprits always penalized when that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Why? Not a single one of them are employed because of their ability to scrummage, none of them have trained for it, have the conditioning for it, have experience of it.

It would be dangerous and a terrible spectacle

Because they'd want to stay employed in the game, that's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I can appreciate the old days but we cant go back to them. 

We can't turn back the clock, quite right, but we can reverse some rulings that I consider have had an adverse effect on the product we watch.

And of course once again I am highlighting the interchange ruling, it was brought in to so called speed up the game, but it really has had the opposite effect coaches have utilised the 'fresh' player's in defensive stratergies, without doubt even yourself and Tommy must admit it is far far easier for coaches to formulate defensive stratergies with 17 players and utilising a number who are rotated on numerous occasions.

Without doubt, modern day professional player's are fitter than there contemporaries from years ago acheived not just with training full time but with better understanding and application of nutritional values and lifestyles, I would love to see these present day athletes playing to the same rules as those from 25+ years ago, a reversal to those rules would make the game faster, ball player's would have far more opportunities to express themselves and handling, running and passing would be more to the fore and coaches would really have to work on both offensive and moreso defensive stratergies with less player's to call upon both in number's 17 down to 15 and far less interchanges to utilise, it is a not a modern day statement that says "defences win matches" it has always been so and will continue to be so, so e of the best games I have ever seen have been low scoring encounters, but today the interchange ruling predominantly puts all the emphasis is on defence.

If those 70% fit guy's from years ago could play and perform in the entertaing manner in which they did, I would love to see these super-fit athlete's of today playing under the same rulings. Those of us who champion this sport of ours have always said that newbies who watch a game will keep coming back for more, if we could change the rulings that make the game more open, then I am sure we would entice far more people to become regular attendees and viewer's.

Obviously, just my thoughts of my expierience making a comparison of this wonderful sport having observed it a very close quaters through both era's and even prior to that, I am not saying these things because as some would say I am stuck in the past, I am not brash enough to make these points just because "everthing was better back then" off course they weren't, I consider the majority of the moderrn day player's without doubt and fear of contradiction as the best I have ever seen, I just don't think though that the evolution of the particular rule I highlight has had the desired effect and improved the game as a spectacle, it could do so much better.

 

 

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

When every player needs to defend for 80minutes possession of the ball becomes more and more important. You cant risk throwing the ball around and completing at 60%. You would spend nearly three quarters of the game defending

Every player is defending for 80 mins, that is 100%?

Completing at 60% that is 48mins?

You spend 3/4's (75%) of the game defending that is 60 mins.

I don't think you are grasping this at all, are you forgetting that there will be 2 teams competing.

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/04/2020 at 15:25, Hela Wigmen said:

Seen that he’s proposing that once the isolation is lifted, we change to a game of four fifteen minute quarters in order to get more games in and for adverts to fill more slots. 

If that was to brought in i suggest that the 4 people on the interchange bench could only be used like in soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...