Variety in Rugby League

[EastLondonMike]

Just been listening to the most recent Sky Sports Golden Point podcast with Luther Burrell, where inevitably the topic of the difficulty of switching codes has come up and the differences in adapting between the two sports, and Luther mentions the difference in 'plays' in both sports, and how in RU (according to him) there was an element of variety in what happened in attack, as opposed to in RL where we have a set of stock plays that all teams perform, and the battle is in who performs them best. He said this quite unwittingly and with no desire to say anything negative, but highlights something that many on these boards have said for some time, about the variety of attack in RL.

With Lockdown, I, like many i'm sure, have been watching lots of old RL from the late 80's / early 90's, which was when i first discovered the game, and the level of variety in attacking plays is in stark contrast with that of today. And it got me to thinking why? Why have modern day coaches abandoned the practise of coming up with new and innovative attacking plays to get an advantage over the opposition?

Daryll Powell at Cas showed some signs of introducing something fresh a few seasons back, Tim Sheens always did in his time at Wests, but cant think of too many other current coaches who try and produce something new.

[welshmagpie]

18 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

Just been listening to the most recent Sky Sports Golden Point podcast with Luther Burrell, where inevitably the topic of the difficulty of switching codes has come up and the differences in adapting between the two sports, and Luther mentions the difference in 'plays' in both sports, and how in RU (according to him) there was an element of variety in what happened in attack, as opposed to in RL where we have a set of stock plays that all teams perform, and the battle is in who performs them best. He said this quite unwittingly and with no desire to say anything negative, but highlights something that many on these boards have said for some time, about the variety of attack in RL.

With Lockdown, I, like many i'm sure, have been watching lots of old RL from the late 80's / early 90's, which was when i first discovered the game, and the level of variety in attacking plays is in stark contrast with that of today. And it got me to thinking why? Why have modern day coaches abandoned the practise of coming up with new and innovative attacking plays to get an advantage over the opposition?

Daryll Powell at Cas showed some signs of introducing something fresh a few seasons back, Tim Sheens always did in his time at Wests, but cant think of too many other current coaches who try and produce something new.

There were twins or brothers (can’t remember) who coached Ipswich Jets a few years back - definitely played with exception to the norm

Regular short kick offs.
Upto 50 passes per attacking set. 

 

[EastLondonMike]

5 minutes ago, welshmagpie said:

There were twins or brothers (can’t remember) who coached Ipswich Jets a few years back - definitely played with exception to the norm

Regular short kick offs.
Upto 50 passes per attacking set. 

 

Walker brothers in the Queensland cup. One of their things was immediately releasing the tackled player to speed up the game. Which was an interesting tactic, but purely based on fitness, or greater fitness of the team they coached.

I just wonder why coaches don't appear to bring much newness to their teams attack. Maybe some do but it's not that noticeable.

[Number 16]

Here's me thinking this thread was about Bernard Cribbins singing Abide With Me at Wembley. 

[Lowdesert]

29 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

Just been listening to the most recent Sky Sports Golden Point podcast with Luther Burrell, where inevitably the topic of the difficulty of switching codes has come up and the differences in adapting between the two sports, and Luther mentions the difference in 'plays' in both sports, and how in RU (according to him) there was an element of variety in what happened in attack, as opposed to in RL where we have a set of stock plays that all teams perform, and the battle is in who performs them best. He said this quite unwittingly and with no desire to say anything negative, but highlights something that many on these boards have said for some time, about the variety of attack in RL.

With Lockdown, I, like many i'm sure, have been watching lots of old RL from the late 80's / early 90's, which was when i first discovered the game, and the level of variety in attacking plays is in stark contrast with that of today. And it got me to thinking why? Why have modern day coaches abandoned the practise of coming up with new and innovative attacking plays to get an advantage over the opposition?

Daryll Powell at Cas showed some signs of introducing something fresh a few seasons back, Tim Sheens always did in his time at Wests, but cant think of too many other current coaches who try and produce something new.

This does not depict the RU I have seen.  Lunging down to ground is just as negative as hitting the ball up.  This isn’t a pop at RU but what is generally stock fodder.

Defenses are more uniform and organised these days.  That, together with flat attacking lines are the big differences between now and then in RL.  

 

[EastLondonMike]

Just now, Lowdesert said:

This does not depict the RU I have seen.  Lunging down to ground is just as negative as hitting the ball up.  This isn’t a pop at RU but what is generally stock fodder.

Defenses are more uniform and organised these days.  That, together with flat attacking lines are the big differences between now and then in RL.  

 

completely agree, but the main point of the post was about the progression or lack of it, in RL attacking plays.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, EastLondonMike said:

completely agree, but the main point of the post was about the progression or lack of it, in RL attacking plays.

Yes mate, I got that.  The difference being that the ‘lunge’ or attempt to bust through is followed by a ruck or a maul delay and our is a PTB.  Both stop start whichever way we look at it.  

I think you’ll find, that ‘stock’plays, blocking etc etc are no different in either game.  

 

[DoubleD]

6 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

Just been listening to the most recent Sky Sports Golden Point podcast with Luther Burrell, where inevitably the topic of the difficulty of switching codes has come up and the differences in adapting between the two sports, and Luther mentions the difference in 'plays' in both sports, and how in RU (according to him) there was an element of variety in what happened in attack, as opposed to in RL where we have a set of stock plays that all teams perform, and the battle is in who performs them best. He said this quite unwittingly and with no desire to say anything negative, but highlights something that many on these boards have said for some time, about the variety of attack in RL.

With Lockdown, I, like many i'm sure, have been watching lots of old RL from the late 80's / early 90's, which was when i first discovered the game, and the level of variety in attacking plays is in stark contrast with that of today. And it got me to thinking why? Why have modern day coaches abandoned the practise of coming up with new and innovative attacking plays to get an advantage over the opposition?

Daryll Powell at Cas showed some signs of introducing something fresh a few seasons back, Tim Sheens always did in his time at Wests, but cant think of too many other current coaches who try and produce something new.

It’s a very interesting point and I agree. Toulouse play some great footy through Houles so it can be done, and you’ve also highlighted others.

I think coaching certainly plays a part and there’s a greater focus on defence and not conceding whilst successful Australian teams have focused on attritional nature of repeat sets and wearing down an opposition. Part of that is due to the greater fitness of players these days which allow for fewer open field opportunities, particularly with sliding defences. 

However, I don’t think it helps that a lot of coaches are forwards and I’ve often advocated that clubs or RFL should employ a specialist halves coach to upskill pivots. The halves and centres don’t generally seem as creative as past ones. Part of that I feel is due to the focus on weight training and wrestling. 

That was a bit of an incoherent brain dump after a couple of beers in the sun but in short, there are a collection of factors in my opinion 

[EastLondonMike]

1 hour ago, DoubleD said:

It’s a very interesting point and I agree. Toulouse play some great footy through Houles so it can be done, and you’ve also highlighted others.

I think coaching certainly plays a part and there’s a greater focus on defence and not conceding whilst successful Australian teams have focused on attritional nature of repeat sets and wearing down an opposition. Part of that is due to the greater fitness of players these days which allow for fewer open field opportunities, particularly with sliding defences. 

However, I don’t think it helps that a lot of coaches are forwards and I’ve often advocated that clubs or RFL should employ a specialist halves coach to upskill pivots. The halves and centres don’t generally seem as creative as past ones. Part of that I feel is due to the focus on weight training and wrestling. 

That was a bit of an incoherent brain dump after a couple of beers in the sun but in short, there are a collection of factors in my opinion 

I agree, but still see more variety (albeit not a huge amount more) coming from the NRL. For instance a couple of seasons back we started to see the re-introduction of the run around. A staple play between halves for decades.

I also find it strange from a progressive point of view. I would have thought all coaches, to remain or attain success, would be looking to personally improve year on year, and not just by working the group of players they're responsible for harder on the plays/facets of the game they currently use, or used the season before, but by implementing newness to their play regularly.

I'd like to ask some of todays first team coaches what they specifically added to their teams attack upon taking control. What did Shaun Wane introduce to the Wigan team, that was new, when he took over from Michael Mcguire? same for Agar taking over at Leeds and any other current coach.

[Tommygilf]

Leeds under McDermott, Cas under Powell and Wigan under Wane perhaps best typify the attacking spectrum of modern RL.

Leeds in attack was unstructured. Very few set plays and had many comments from opposition about how this unpredictability made video sessions less important and defending much less easy. Also made Leeds prone to looking directionless and out of ideas at times.

Cas under Powell perhaps a best of both worlds. Attacking plays at pace making use of strike players in various positions. Determination to use the full width of the pitch too in a much more ordered attacking fashion than the previous example. They were also willing to attack from deep which marked them out.

Finally Wigan under Wane. Block plays at pace that for all they were predictable were equally very hard to defend against.

I didn't know where to categorize Tony Smiths Warrington in this venn diagram of attacking styles so perhaps it sits outside!

My takeaway from Burrell's point that there wouldn't regularly be the same set plays in union I think is a misrepresentation of the fact that the same situation rarely presents itself. Without wanting to take this cross code, the number of ball passing players generally limits what happens on a union pitch in attack to plays off a 9 or 10. The number of players, unlimited tackles and propensity to go back inside to a forward or podding from the ruck masques this as greater diversity. Its not that attacking plays then are unpredictable they are just not regular.

In League by contrast there are essentially 3 lateral positions from which an attacking play can come from regularly. Left, right or Centre. Occasionally we see a blind side play and even in the central positions we see an attempt by the clever players to get tackled to the outside of the post to create more space. Our attacking plays correspond to those points on the field and the limited number of tackles does make a more consistent attacking style more appealing to a generally more conservative attitude in the game now.

I do agree with both Carney and Burrell that we have become more conservative - but that the primary factor in that has been defences getting better meaning plays at fast pace are prioritised over maverick moves as they are replicable. I also agreed with the point that we seem to have taken on this Australian obsession with left and right sides to every position. I understand the logic behind it - get really good at attacking your side by doing it exclusively - but I do think it can be seen as symptomatic of how many teams and coaches have a plan A and then nothing much after that.

[Welsh RL & RU watcher]

IMO to see more ad-lib football we should go back to a 5 metre defensive line, and have 12-a-side, get rid of the scrum. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 hours ago, DoubleD said:

The halves and centres don’t generally seem as creative as past ones. Part of that I feel is due to the focus on weight training and wrestling.

Well the directive for the NRL start is aimed at taking some of the wrestle out.... Talking about a repeat 6 set rather than a penalty 

[ojx]

5 hours ago, Welsh RL & RU watcher said:

IMO to see more ad-lib football we should go back to a 5 metre defensive line, and have 12-a-side, get rid of the scrum. 

I think 12-a-side would an excellent idea to help open up play, combined with limited interchanges. According to Tony Collin's "Rugby Reloaded" podcast, 13-aside only narrowly won out over 12-aside when the Northern clubs voted to modified the rules.

[Welsh RL & RU watcher]

6 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I think they've been picking the same holes in it

I guess giving the offended  teams the option of kick or extra 6 makes sense

Getting ready rid of the jui jitsu is key for me so I hope they get it working and all those superleague club's wrestle rooms might become extinct if we take it up too

The reasoning is fatigue, the NRL want the ball in play more and some want reduced interchanges so forwards are fatigued at the end of matches, this then helps smaller half-backs to star in the last 15 miutes of matches. 

[unapologetic pedant]

For this to make any sense Luther would need to be more specific about the term "Plays". If it refers to ball-in-hand attacking moves, there`s definitely less variety in Union than League. When Union teams are hammering away with drive, pick-and-go tactics, it`s pretty simple stuff, and with unlimited possession it can go on for 20 or 30 "phases". After a spell of this, one big Harbour-Bridge pass can be enough to undo the defence. An equivalent scenario in League requires plays of greater diversity, with more pairs of hands involved, to achieve the same result.

On the subject of enhancing variety in League, the obstruction rule is far too restrictive. If we gave more freedom to attacking players to be ahead of the ball, as long as they remain static, placing an obligation on defenders to hold back and make better defensive reads, it would allow more complex attacking patterns. Some might say this is Gridiron, but players would still be penalised if they made a deliberate move between defender and ball-carrier.

Also, we have eliminated the variety that can follow the charge-down of a kick with the "back to 1" rule. No coach wants to risk a repeat set, so standard kick pressure is to attack the kicker not the ball. Since a charge-down is exempt from the knock-on rule, why should it be deemed as playing at the ball for the tackle count?

[EastLondonMike]

I seem to recall (i might be wrong) that Tim Sheens used to have an attacking play book, and am sure i heard this mentioned on a broadcast of a game some years ago when he was at Wests Tigers. How many coaches would have such a thing these days? how many coaches sit down and try and work out new set plays to attack from a scrum or a particular part of the field?

I know @Tex Evans Thigh knows a thing or two about coaching. Maybe he could offer an opinion.

[Man of Kent]

I listened to that interview and thought Burrell sounded ever so slightly miffed with the way it’s gone for him at Wire. I don’t think Steve Price rates him.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

20 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

I seem to recall (i might be wrong) that Tim Sheens used to have an attacking play book, and am sure i heard this mentioned on a broadcast of a game some years ago when he was at Wests Tigers. How many coaches would have such a thing these days? how many coaches sit down and try and work out new set plays to attack from a scrum or a particular part of the field?

I know @Tex Evans Thigh knows a thing or two about coaching. Maybe he could offer an opinion.

You are too generous Mike but yes, I do have a bit of insight. In fact I'm cutting up some stats for my mate's championship team at the moment as a way to learn Power BI.

The bloke I'm talking about is a big fan of Tim Sheens and says he learned a lot off him but we had a discussion about why he wasnt that successful in the UK despite being technically elite and one of the best man managers around. Might be a different discussion but the psychology of managing players is changing a lot.

In terms of playbook, I think the game went stale for at least ten years when everyone did the same play and it was just about who executed it better which ultimately meant that the teams with better athletes and better mentally conditioned players would win. We've seen a return to creativity recently, in England driven by Darryl Powell, and its good to see. One of the things I noticed about the game in the lockdown period is that games in the 80s and early 90s were more entertaining. It wasnt necessarily the best way to win games but it was what they did. Runarounds in their own ten..Fck it.

Glad more creative play is coming back and playbooks are a natural part of that. As players get more well drilled and athletic, defences get better so its natural that attacks then have to get more creative, but also have to balance it with percentages.

Part of the fascination of sport!

Did that answer the question? I've had half a bottle of tequila.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

On 20/05/2020 at 05:21, EastLondonMike said:

Just been listening to the most recent Sky Sports Golden Point podcast with Luther Burrell, where inevitably the topic of the difficulty of switching codes has come up and the differences in adapting between the two sports, and Luther mentions the difference in 'plays' in both sports, and how in RU (according to him) there was an element of variety in what happened in attack, as opposed to in RL where we have a set of stock plays that all teams perform, and the battle is in who performs them best. He said this quite unwittingly and with no desire to say anything negative, but highlights something that many on these boards have said for some time, about the variety of attack in RL.

With Lockdown, I, like many i'm sure, have been watching lots of old RL from the late 80's / early 90's, which was when i first discovered the game, and the level of variety in attacking plays is in stark contrast with that of today. And it got me to thinking why? Why have modern day coaches abandoned the practise of coming up with new and innovative attacking plays to get an advantage over the opposition?

Daryll Powell at Cas showed some signs of introducing something fresh a few seasons back, Tim Sheens always did in his time at Wests, but cant think of too many other current coaches who try and produce something new.

Just read this context Mike, sorry I missed it.

Glad we agree on a lot of things after reading that. I think the difference with RU is that they have time to set and do a 'move'. League is so fast you have to be able to execute on the fly so it makes sense to have plays ingrained into the players so you can play fast and execute quickly. Clever coaches are now setting structures that allow for creativity, whilst still playing in a structure. Get to this position in this shape and play what's on. Needs good players to do it well though which is part of the fun.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

On 20/05/2020 at 20:53, ojx said:

I think 12-a-side would an excellent idea to help open up play, combined with limited interchanges. According to Tony Collin's "Rugby Reloaded" podcast, 13-aside only narrowly won out over 12-aside when the Northern clubs voted to modified the rules.

12 players would be imbalanced. You have a FB as the odd mad out making it an even 12 in the line. The game is exciting enough and there are plenty of tries. We should be making try scoring more difficult if anything. Easy tries aren't appealing.

[unapologetic pedant]

12 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

Just read this context Mike, sorry I missed it.

Glad we agree on a lot of things after reading that. I think the difference with RU is that they have time to set and do a 'move'. League is so fast you have to be able to execute on the fly so it makes sense to have plays ingrained into the players so you can play fast and execute quickly. Clever coaches are now setting structures that allow for creativity, whilst still playing in a structure. Get to this position in this shape and play what's on. Needs good players to do it well though which is part of the fun.

There`s always been too much attention on individual "set plays", when it`s set patterns of play, or as you describe it "playing in a structure", that produces exciting attacking play constructing sets of six. If a team run a convoluted set play on tackle 2 and it`s ineffective, tackles 3,4 and 5 are likely to be nothing plays just to set up the kick. A team who over-emphasise set plays can quickly run out of ideas and direction once they`ve shot their bolt.

There is little mention of defensive variety in RL. Other than "big hits", there appears no respect for good defensive play, however technically and positionally intelligent it is. In particular, good play to slow down ruck speed provokes nothing but negativity, evidenced by all the nonsense about "wrestling". Eventually some new administrator will propose a ban on defence.

[EastLondonMike]

2 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

Did that answer the question? I've had half a bottle of tequila.

Ha ha. Perfect. 

[unapologetic pedant]

18 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

With regards to the lack of variety, I think a lot of it is people not quite knowing what they're looking at, which is why 'runarounds' are so commonly cited as a thing we are missing out on - because they're visibly so different. I'd love to see what attacking variety rugby union has that league is lacking that works against a competent defence. 

As one example, second-man/block plays were almost always ran out-to-in until a couple of years ago. Teams learned to counteract these in some cases by defending out-to-in, meaning the defensive centre picks up the second row, defending halfback picks up the fullback and defending winger picks up the centre. As a consequence, second rowers will often now run out-to-in and then change direction back outwards at the last second, as there's a bigger gap due to the outside defenders getting ahead of the ball. This opens up the option of an inside ball to the fullback or dummying it, both of which Saints have scored with. Alternatively you can throw a pass across the front of the fullback straight to the centre, knowing the defending winger will be slightly behind and vulnerable to a quick catch and pass. You could also go straight over the top to the winger. All of these options would likely be derided as "just a standard block-play", because the analysis of RL in this country is so simplistic.  

I agree on this, there's all sorts of subtleties in defence which get glossed over. Even stuff as big-picture as whether a team is stacking in and sliding, or defending out to in, but also stuff like the fullback defending in the line on the tryline, halves dropping out of the defensive line to cover kicks. Obviously the wrestle too, the skill to it never seems to be explained. 

All the complexities you set out here, attacking and defensive, might come as a big surprise not just to casual observers of RL but also, I fear, to many who watch it every week. It would be interesting to test the knowledge of journalists and commentators too, because the banality of their coverage could be less their inability to analyse, and more that they don`t realise there is anything to analyse. When the variety is more subtle, it requires the audience, and those influencing the audience, to be commensurately more subtle.

The players turned pundits must know there`s a lot more to RL than they appear willing or able to convey. Whether they lack the vocabulary or inhabit a culture which revels in the perception of RL as simple, they fail to educate people on how to appreciate the game in any depth.

[Dunbar]

18 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

As one example, second-man/block plays were almost always ran out-to-in until a couple of years ago. Teams learned to counteract these in some cases by defending out-to-in, meaning the defensive centre picks up the second row, defending halfback picks up the fullback and defending winger picks up the centre. As a consequence, second rowers will often now run out-to-in and then change direction back outwards at the last second, as there's a bigger gap due to the outside defenders getting ahead of the ball. This opens up the option of an inside ball to the fullback or dummying it, both of which Saints have scored with. Alternatively you can throw a pass across the front of the fullback straight to the centre, knowing the defending winger will be slightly behind and vulnerable to a quick catch and pass. You could also go straight over the top to the winger. All of these options would likely be derided as "just a standard block-play", because the analysis of RL in this country is so simplistic.

This is an excellent insight into the modern game and shows how 'simple' plays can be complex and difficult to execute well.

It highlights the biggest paradox in the sport.  Modern players are fitter, stronger, faster and more technically capable across the board than they were 20 or 30 years ago and yet the sport on the whole is perceived by many who watch it as less skilful and less entertaining.

If the majority of people inside the sport struggle to appreciate these plays then how can we expect those outside. 

Sometimes the simplicity of a sport is its best attribute.

I really do believe that the heart of all of this is the tackle.  In the 80's and 90's Rugby League was a collision sport.  One or multiple tacklers would hit the ball carrier with a tackle and the tackled player would restart the game quickly with a play the ball.  Today, the sport is based on wrestling in the tackle (as the NRL video shows).  Again, this introduces another paradox.  It is as tough to play as ever (probably more so) but it lacks the spectacle of the 'big hits' we would see more often in a purely contact sport.

Another outcome of the wrestle and the managed play the ball speed is that defensive lines are more structured and effective than ever before.  This means that off the cuff plays are less likely to be effective and teams default back to the game management and set plays that have been coached into them.  Heads up rugby with halves playing to the defensive line they see in front of them is a rare talent these days.

I would love to see Rugby League return to being a collision sport again.  I would personally like to see a trial where there can only be a maximum of two defensive players in any tackle.  I believe it would reduce (if not eliminate) the wrestle, encourage more offloads and reward a defensive hit that can bring down the ball carrier effectively and quickly.  Of course it won't be perfect but I would like to see how the sport changes with this.

[dkw]

Coaches are too focused on percentages, happy for a set of 6 to be completed on the back of 6-8 yard makes per tackle with no leeway to losing yards. It's interesting watching old games and how deep the plays often came from compared to the line passes in the modern game. There was no worry over losing territory as a risk of trying to manouver the opposition defence to create space or overlaps. Its a very Australian way of playing that now is prevalent in our game.