Anyone miss scrums in the GF?

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Tonka said:

I have completely the opposite view.  I think it’s only because it’s coded into you what the “traditional” roles are because of the numbering that you can spot the divergence without needing to see the numbers.  For a new fan it’s a nightmare.

Name any number/position on a Rugby League pitch and any fan will be able to tell you what their key responsibilities are, how they are expected to play in both attack and defense and the key metrics (for many positions) that will showcase their performance.  Of course, over here, we don't have the advantage of actually having those numbers.

But the idea that the game has evolved loved past positions having set jobs is complete nonsense, it is probably more structured than ever (which is one of the common criticisms of the modern game by people who preferred the less structured games of the past).

[Scotchy1]

18 minutes ago, Tonka said:

I have completely the opposite view.  I think it’s only because it’s coded into you what the “traditional” roles are because of the numbering that you can spot the divergence without needing to see the numbers.  For a new fan it’s a nightmare.

But it doesnt reflect the game as it is actually played. What is a Prop? is it Adam Cuthbertson throwing the ball about? is it Jamie Peacocks perpetual motion, just making tonnes of tackles, tonnes of metres, tonnes of hit ups? Is it Kylie Lueliua, not making huge amounts of tackles, not making huge amounts of metres or taking a huge amounts of hit ups but getting in there and hitting hard and disrupting things, or is it a Barry Mac head down, run hard try and bump some tacklers off. 

If you judge Kylie by the metrics that made Cuthbertson, he was a terrible player. If you judge Cuthbertson by the metrics you want from JP he isnt great. 

Yet stick the same number on their back and say that is their position and that is what you are doing. 

The answer is that it is all of them and as such trying to box these players all in together doesnt really serve any purpose. 

This pretty much the plot of moneyball. Do you look at a player and see judge him on how he fulfils some idea of what his positional role is. Or do you see a collection of skills and abilities and how they fit in to the wider team and their skills and abilities. 

If to win a game you have to make around 1500 metres in that game. Does it matter where those 1500metres come from?

The top three metre makers in SL last season were Ash Handley, Liam Farrell and Alex Walmsley. A big winger, a small second rower and a huge prop.  They played for the CC winners, The LLS winners and the GF winners. 

Its a team game, the question is how does the team achieve the outcomes, not how does a player fulfil the traditional expectations. 

You tell someone that Morgan Smithies should play like Ali Lauitiiti, when they watch Smithies they are going to think he is appalling. 

[Tonka]

9 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

But it doesnt reflect the game as it is actually played. What is a Prop? is it Adam Cuthbertson throwing the ball about? is it Jamie Peacocks perpetual motion, just making tonnes of tackles, tonnes of metres, tonnes of hit ups? Is it Kylie Lueliua, not making huge amounts of tackles, not making huge amounts of metres or taking a huge amounts of hit ups but getting in there and hitting hard and disrupting things, or is it a Barry Mac head down, run hard try and bump some tacklers off. 

If you judge Kylie by the metrics that made Cuthbertson, he was a terrible player. If you judge Cuthbertson by the metrics you want from JP he isnt great. 

Yet stick the same number on their back and say that is their position and that is what you are doing. 

The answer is that it is all of them and as such trying to box these players all in together doesnt really serve any purpose. 

This pretty much the plot of moneyball. Do you look at a player and see judge him on how he fulfils some idea of what his positional role is. Or do you see a collection of skills and abilities and how they fit in to the wider team and their skills and abilities. 

If to win a game you have to make around 1500 metres in that game. Does it matter where those 1500metres come from?

The top three metre makers in SL last season were Ash Handley, Liam Farrell and Alex Walmsley. A big winger, a small second rower and a huge prop.  They played for the CC winners, The LLS winners and the GF winners. 

Its a team game, the question is how does the team achieve the outcomes, not how does a player fulfil the traditional expectations. 

You tell someone that Morgan Smithies should play like Ali Lauitiiti, when they watch Smithies they are going to think he is appalling. 

Sorry I don’t agree, otherwise there would be no positions.

I agree with flexibility in the role and there is no single measure of performance in each position, but they are a lot more fixed, and with good reason, than you’re suggesting.

[unapologetic pedant]

13 hours ago, Tonka said:

I hate squad numbering 

The evolution of player roles coupled with meaningless numbers leaves me confused as a spectator, truthfully 

I never bought the idea that squad numbers increases jersey sales - if you want a player name and number just put their usual position on 

The late 80s, early 90s was the period when clubs started regarding replica jersey sales as commercially important. This coincided with American Football and its merchandise becoming vaguely voguish. A confluence of trends which probably played as much a part in the penchant for higher numbers than the wish to move to a squad numbering system.

BTW, earlier in the 80s gridiron shirts were the favourite style accessory for some of the less eye-catching members of Culture Club. Almost as egregious as Spandau Ballet wearing tartan.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

tactics and strategy and skill attributes and roles on the pitch are intrinsically linked.

They are intrinsically linked but that doesn't make them interchangeable to prove your point.

[Scotchy1]

 

Just now, Tonka said:

Sorry I don’t agree, otherwise there would be no positions.

I agree with flexibility in the role and there is no single measure of performance in each position, but they are a lot more fixed, and with good reason, than you’re suggesting.

There are no positions. You could name your entire team back to front and it wouldnt make any difference. Call James Graham a stand off and it doesnt change anything. Players dont have to do X because thats what the number on his back traditionally did. Its not mandated by the rules nor is it really a driver of success. 

In fact ignoring those traditional needs is often a driver of success. Kevin Sinfield making 30-40 tackles a game as a half (which isnt traditional) allowed Leeds to interchange Rob Burrow at Hooker where he would make 2 tackles a game if he was lucky (again, traditionally he should have been amongst the top tackle makers rather than the bottom) which saw leeds become the most successful side in the pro era. Would calling Sinfield a 9 and Burrow a 7 have made much difference? no. We know that. We saw for more than a decade Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow playing some combination of 6,7,9 and 13 and they still did the same role, with the same skills. 

You dont really get this oversimplification of tactics and strategy in other sports, people are fully aware and accepting that a player wearing the number 2 could be a left back, full back,, attacking fullback, wing back, inverted wingback, 3rd centre back, ball playing centreback, cover centre back, sweeper, libero. or the recent evolution of Chris Wilders over-lapping centre back.

People would look at you crazy if you told them that number 10s like Maradona, Michael Owen and Lother Matthaus did the same job. 

[Scotchy1]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

They are intrinsically linked but that doesn't make them interchangeable to prove your point.

If your position is not your role, which is not to use your skills and attributes in service of the tactics and strategy then, well, put simply your team is going to lose. 

[Oxford]

9 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

If your position is not your role, which is not to use your skills and attributes in service of the tactics and strategy then, well, put simply your team is going to lose. 

“You might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see”!”

[Scotchy1]

7 minutes ago, Oxford said:

“You might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see”!”

Not at all. I just not sure why people are so committed to using broad vague labels to describe a varied complex interconnected system. 

Call a prop a full back and put him in the number 1 shirt, he is still going to do what he does which is use his skills and attributes in service of the strategy and tactics.

I dont know why the sport does itself down so much in terms of complexity. Pro RL coach must be the easiest job in the entire world in most fans minds. 

[Oxford]

8 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I dont know why the sport does itself down so much in terms of complexity. Pro RL coach must be the easiest job in the entire world in most fans minds.

Now if you'd said this in the first place.

Complexity is an issue but that's why you have a coaching group under the head oncho.

Yes could call anyone a full-back but only if their Physical attributes & skill set fit the role, not to mention the psychological & strategic  demands involved.

Some attributes suit almost any role in the game, others are locked into the position and many just come with the person playing there.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

 

There are no positions. You could name your entire team back to front and it wouldnt make any difference. Call James Graham a stand off and it doesnt change anything. Players dont have to do X because thats what the number on his back traditionally did. Its not mandated by the rules nor is it really a driver of success. 

Irrespective of the scrum there remains a core pattern to how an RL team attack or defend which depends on players knowing where to stand and what to do. Deviations from the norm are more intelligible when the player numbering system reflects the norm. Currently UK RL sends the message that everything is "honoured more in the breach than in the observance".

In Mini and Mod League players are less able to adhere to prescribed roles. Combine this with the desire to maximise everyone`s involvement, and there`s consequently a strong tendency for bunching. This is partly addressed by giving two players specific positions wearing the DH and FR vests, and these being rotated (pre-Covid) between periods. Junior League could otherwise descend into an unrewarding mess.

[Scotchy1]

23 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Irrespective of the scrum there remains a core pattern to how an RL team attack or defend which depends on players knowing where to stand and what to do. Deviations from the norm are more intelligible when the player numbering system reflects the norm. Currently UK RL sends the message that everything is "honoured more in the breach than in the observance".

In Mini and Mod League players are less able to adhere to prescribed roles. Combine this with the desire to maximise everyone`s involvement, and there`s consequently a strong tendency for bunching. This is partly addressed by giving two players specific positions wearing the DH and FR vests, and these being rotated (pre-Covid) between periods. Junior League could otherwise descend into an unrewarding mess.

Junior league does need to have a different outlook and different needs. But whatever you do to mini and mod it isnt going to look like the pro game. They need those things because they arent capable of understanding the nuance, tactics and strategy of the pro game. Understandably. 

As a starting point for kids of course, but the game at pro level doesnt resemble the simplified version for kids. 

36 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Now if you'd said this in the first place.

Complexity is an issue but that's why you have a coaching group under the head oncho.

Yes could call anyone a full-back but only if their Physical attributes & skill set fit the role, not to mention the psychological & strategic  demands involved.

Some attributes suit almost any role in the game, others are locked into the position and many just come with the person playing there.

You could call anyone a full back, if you found that giving a different role to a different player with a different skillset worked, then thats what becomes a fullback. Thats why we see different types of full backs. At Leeds ive seen it multiple times. Brent Webb played as an extra half at Fullback but wasnt the kick returner that Hardaker was. So when Hardaker moved to FB leeds needed to give someone else responsibility for being the 3rd half (or in leeds case, often the 4th half) but Hardaker didnt suddenly develop the skills of a half back. Nor did he when he change massively when moving from wing to centre. He was still the same great runner, good defender, can't pass for toffee. 

When leeds play with Walker at FB he takes the kick returns in because he is a great runner of the ball, he chimes in to the line less because he hasnt got the skills yet to play as that third half (though he isnt terrible at it and will get there imo). When Myler does it however he isnt as good at returning, so he passes off to Handley and Briscoe to take those kick returns in. 

The game has moved beyond FB does this, prop does that, second rower does the other. Its a set of outcomes that need to be achieved and a set of players with different skillsets to achieve them the skill is blending them together. You can stick a prop at second row and call him a centre if you want. And if that game calls for a big player running wide at backs it will work.

[Tonka]

9 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

 

There are no positions. You could name your entire team back to front and it wouldnt make any difference. Call James Graham a stand off and it doesnt change anything. Players dont have to do X because thats what the number on his back traditionally did. Its not mandated by the rules nor is it really a driver of success. 

In fact ignoring those traditional needs is often a driver of success. Kevin Sinfield making 30-40 tackles a game as a half (which isnt traditional) allowed Leeds to interchange Rob Burrow at Hooker where he would make 2 tackles a game if he was lucky (again, traditionally he should have been amongst the top tackle makers rather than the bottom) which saw leeds become the most successful side in the pro era. Would calling Sinfield a 9 and Burrow a 7 have made much difference? no. We know that. We saw for more than a decade Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow playing some combination of 6,7,9 and 13 and they still did the same role, with the same skills. 

You dont really get this oversimplification of tactics and strategy in other sports, people are fully aware and accepting that a player wearing the number 2 could be a left back, full back,, attacking fullback, wing back, inverted wingback, 3rd centre back, ball playing centreback, cover centre back, sweeper, libero. or the recent evolution of Chris Wilders over-lapping centre back.

People would look at you crazy if you told them that number 10s like Maradona, Michael Owen and Lother Matthaus did the same job. 

No, the shirt no doesn’t dictate what you have to do.  A position is an abstract concept.  But you do need different attributes on the pitch, in my view.  The shirt numbers just align with the evolution of the use different attributes to form the most effective team.

[Oxford]

21 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

You tell someone that Morgan Smithies should play like Ali Lauitiiti, when they watch Smithies they are going to think he is appalling. 

Except no one is doing that ......

You can compare two completely different things as much as you like but the only thing you can be sure about is they're different.

 

[Oxford]

And as this thread was about missing scrums I watched all the SL games and all the NRL games during this period.

On the whole I felt the NRL games were marginally more structured (as usual) generally more intense but not totally. Whent hey had scrums their changes to the rules made it interesting but beyond " Let's have the scrum in the middle" didn't add that much if anything to the game.

I felt the decision to do away with them in SL was a bit silly given the physical nature of the game anyway, but the difference was amazing until they adopted that silly stand around strategy to slow it down again,

Scrums going MIA or AWOL made the game quicker and more intriguing and much more marketable product and very different from other sports.

So, in RL terms and inspite of any real reason scrums will return, business as usual & it will be like it never happened.

 

[audois]

Haven't followed this topic so maybe this has been covered already viz Roy Masters piece from the SMH.

https://www.smh.com.au/by/roy-masters-hveae

 

[Oxford]

8 minutes ago, audois said:

Haven't followed this topic so maybe this has been covered already viz Roy Masters piece from the SMH.

https://www.smh.com.au/by/roy-masters-hveae

 

Bring back the scrum penalty ?

Come on audois, if we get rid we'll hardly need a penalty for them.

I feel that despite talking about scrumless RL for decades they've never had the courage to say okay let's do it!

Super League did it as a precautionary measure but the results were dramatic.

[Dunbar]

On 04/12/2020 at 11:27, Scotchy1 said:

If to win a game you have to make around 1500 metres in that game. Does it matter where those 1500metres come from?

The top three metre makers in SL last season were Ash Handley, Liam Farrell and Alex Walmsley. A big winger, a small second rower and a huge prop.  They played for the CC winners, The LLS winners and the GF winners. 

Its a team game, the question is how does the team achieve the outcomes, not how does a player fulfil the traditional expectations. 

This is a very strange way to argue that the game doesn't have positions any more.  Yes, these three are the top metre makers for 2020 and I will tell you exactly how they achieved these results.

Ash Handley (as a winger) will have made lots of kick return metres, lots of carries on plays 1 and 2 coming out of his half and will have finished breaks and try scoring opportunities.  You know, the responsibilities of his position.

Alex Walmsley (as a prop/middle forward) will have made lots of metres from kick off returns and plays 3 and 4 as his team gain momentum in their sets in order to win field position and/or set up an an attacking play.  You know, the responsibilities of his position.

And Liam Farrell, as a left edge forward,  would have made lots of metres as Wigan shift the ball to his edge and he makes attacking metres or breaks.  He will also have supported any breaks on his edge.  You know, the responsibilities of his position. 

What you have done here is highlight one of the reasons why these players were recognized as the best player in their position this year and were rewarded for selection in the 2020 Dream Team in their position and used it as an argument that there are no positions any more. Bizarre. 

[DavidM]

16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is a very strange way to argue that the game doesn't have positions any more.  Yes, these three are the top metre makers for 2020 and I will tell you exactly how they achieved these results.

Ash Handley (as a winger) will have made lots of kick return metres, lots of carries on plays 1 and 2 coking out of his half and will have finished breaks and try scoring opportunities.  You know, the responsibilities of his position.

Alex Walmsley (as a prop/middle forward) will have made lots of metres from kick off returns and plays 3 and 4 as his team gain momentum in their sets in order to win field position and/or set up an an attacking play.  You know, the responsibilities of his position.

And Liam Farrell, as a left edge forward,  would have made lots of metres as Wigan shift the ball to his edge and he makes attacking metres or breaks.  He will also have supported any breaks on his edge.  You know, the responsibilities of his position. 

What you have done here is highlight one of the reasons why these players were recognized as the best player in their position this year and were rewarded for selection in the 2020 Dream Team in their position and used it as an argument that there are no positions any more. Bizarre. 

Absolutely . It’s a nonsense argument . Funnily enough when players are played out of position it’s often very noticeable 

[Scotchy1]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This is a very strange way to argue that the game doesn't have positions any more.  Yes, these three are the top metre makers for 2020 and I will tell you exactly how they achieved these results.

Ash Handley (as a winger) will have made lots of kick return metres, lots of carries on plays 1 and 2 coming out of his half and will have finished breaks and try scoring opportunities.  You know, the responsibilities of his position.

Alex Walmsley (as a prop/middle forward) will have made lots of metres from kick off returns and plays 3 and 4 as his team gain momentum in their sets in order to win field position and/or set up an an attacking play.  You know, the responsibilities of his position.

And Liam Farrell, as a left edge forward,  would have made lots of metres as Wigan shift the ball to his edge and he makes attacking metres or breaks.  He will also have supported any breaks on his edge.  You know, the responsibilities of his position. 

What you have done here is highlight one of the reasons why these players were recognized as the best player in their position this year and were rewarded for selection in the 2020 Dream Team in their position and used it as an argument that there are no positions any more. Bizarre. 

Lets pick one example to disprove this overly simplistic argument. 

aAsh Handley apparently makes his metres because he makes lots of carries on plays 1 and 2/ This is a responsibility of his position. Except. That wasnt the traditional responsibility of the position. Even as late as the 1998 Grand Final Leeds lined up the Leroy Rivett and Francis Cummings on the Wing, Wigan with Jason Robinson and Mark Bell. None were there to take hit ups on tackles one and two. Rivett and Robinson are giving away about 6 inches and 3 stone to Ash Handley. 

Why? because the position evolved. The Wingers of 30 years did a different job to what they do today. That happens because coaches play players to their skillset and they blend a team with a variety of skill sets to service their tactics. It is because coaches decided that if you play a bigger player on the wing they can take some of the work off the pack and that gained you more than you lost moving away from the 'speedster' style of winger. The responsibilities of the position changed according to the skill sets of the players. 

The idea that you would judge Jason Robinson on the same metrics as Lesley Vianikolo, and if they had the same number on their backs people would learn some kind of insight in to the game is frankly preposterous. 
 

The game didnt tactically and strategically stop when we named the positions. They change and evolve constantly. The responsibilities of a winger arent the same throughout a single game, never mind the same for all wingers all the time. 

 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Lets pick one example to disprove this overly simplistic argument. 

aAsh Handley apparently makes his metres because he makes lots of carries on plays 1 and 2/ This is a responsibility of his position. Except. That wasnt the traditional responsibility of the position. Even as late as the 1998 Grand Final Leeds lined up the Leroy Rivett and Francis Cummings on the Wing, Wigan with Jason Robinson and Mark Bell. None were there to take hit ups on tackles one and two. Rivett and Robinson are giving away about 6 inches and 3 stone to Ash Handley. 

Why? because the position evolved. The Wingers of 30 years did a different job to what they do today. That happens because coaches play players to their skillset and they blend a team with a variety of skill sets to service their tactics. It is because coaches decided that if you play a bigger player on the wing they can take some of the work off the pack and that gained you more than you lost moving away from the 'speedster' style of winger. The responsibilities of the position changed according to the skill sets of the players. 

The idea that you would judge Jason Robinson on the same metrics as Lesley Vianikolo, and if they had the same number on their backs people would learn some kind of insight in to the game is frankly preposterous. 
 

The game didnt tactically and strategically stop when we named the positions. They change and evolve constantly. The responsibilities of a winger arent the same throughout a single game, never mind the same for all wingers all the time. 

 

I have no idea what you are going on about here, it seems you are trying to disprove an argument I didn't make.

 

[Scotchy1]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have no idea what you are going on about here, it seems you are trying to disprove an argument I didn't make.

 

You literally said that Ash Handley made his metres because of taking hit ups on tackles one or two because, you know, it was a responsibility of his position. 

Ive shown that it wasnt traditionally a responsibility of his position showing your argument to be wrong.  

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

You literally said that Ash Handley made his metres because of taking hit ups on tackles one or two because, you know, it was a responsibility of his position. 

Ive shown that it wasnt traditionally a responsibility of his position showing your argument to be wrong.  

I didn't say it was traditionally the responsibility of the position.  I said it is now.  And it is.

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I didn't say it was traditionally the responsibility of the position.  I said it is now.  And it is.

And the fact that those responsibilities change and evolve is proof that there isnt a set of responsibilities that define a position. Its a skillset of an individual player and how that fits in to the strategy and tactics of a team that defines those responsibilities. 

The simplest example. Once wingers were small and nippy and their job was to run in open field and score tries. Then a coach decided a player didnt really need to that. Wingers could be big and strong and their responsibility could be to gain metres and finish moves close to the line. Jason Robinson can be a winger at 5'8 at 12 stone, Lesley Vianikolo can be 6'2 and 18st, Joe Burgess can be 6'5 and 15st. All can be wingers, all can have different responsibilities matching their skill-sets and their teams strategies. 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

And the fact that those responsibilities change and evolve is proof that there isnt a set of responsibilities that define a position. Its a skillset of an individual player and how that fits in to the strategy and tactics of a team that defines those responsibilities. 

The simplest example. Once wingers were small and nippy and their job was to run in open field and score tries. Then a coach decided a player didnt really need to that. Wingers could be big and strong and their responsibility could be to gain metres and finish moves close to the line. Jason Robinson can be a winger at 5'8 at 12 stone, Lesley Vianikolo can be 6'2 and 18st, Joe Burgess can be 6'5 and 15st. All can be wingers, all can have different responsibilities matching their skill-sets and their teams strategies. 

Look, you are the guy who has said on this thread that "there are no positions" any more in Rugby League.  This is so self evidently untrue that I simply can't be bothered arguing with you about if for 20 pages.  And if in your mind you think this means you have won the argument then great, I am happy for you to take it.