Australian Squad Numbers

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This point in bold is just wrong. Many people disagreeing with you have also said they would have kept 1 to 13 (I've literally said that a number of times). 

The areas of disagreement have been around points like claiming Mal Meninga had no choice but to number the squad like he has. We should remember that is what the debate has been about. 

 

Surely the debate is more fundamental than that - the use of squad numbers or playing numbers is a bigger conversation than just how Australia has chosen to allocate numbers isn't it?

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Balmain1969 said:

The simple way to look at is this, I live in a non RL area (WA) and watch a fair bit of League with non league people. It is so easy for them to understand the game when you point out that the players on each team wearing the same number do the same or similar role in the team. Otherwise its just 26 random people running around a field.

Do you think so? I've taken many new fans to games and to watch in the pub and we have rarely discussed the positions and never the numbers other than "xxxx is number 5"

[Dunbar]

We have certainly seen this conversation dive into the detail and I find it hard to keep up with which side of the argument anyone is on.

All I am really arguing for is that I think the use of squad numbers in this tournament is a mistake (for the good of the sport, although I don't think it is enormous).

The rest is just noise.

[Balmain1969]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Do you think so? I've taken many new fans to games and to watch in the pub and we have rarely discussed the positions and never the numbers other than "xxxx is number 5"

That's because they've got no clue what's going on, my friends know that number 5 is the winger 

Anyway, enough of this, bring on the WC!!!!

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Surely the debate is more fundamental than that - the use of squad numbers or playing numbers is a bigger conversation than just how Australia has chosen to allocate numbers isn't it?

It's certainly become that. But I do think it is a slightly different discussion. 

I think I made the point right at the start. 

I am OK with squad numbers, or no squad numbers. 

My issue has been the Aussies trashing it (and they are actively doing it in the media now), because they don't like it. Sometimes we don't get our preference, we crack on and get on with it. But the Aussies have done a weird thing and then moaned that they were forced into it, despite no one else following them. 

On the periphery stuff, like I say, I enjoy the element of uncertainty around the team naming, right up to kick off. But I suspect that is based on my view of tradition. Having a few beers at the pub in advance, wondering whether Tomkins will play at 1, or Sneyd or Welsby will partner Williams etc. And then finding out either when the BBC tell us or when announced at the ground. I enjoy that part of it, but I wouldn't have an issue if the team was known a day or two earlier. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Balmain1969 said:

That's because they've got no clue what's going on, my friends know that number 5 is the winger 

Anyway, enough of this, bring on the WC!!!!

I should clarify, many of the people I refer to have been Scottish, so they absolutely had no idea what was going on in some of the games

Edited October 14, 2022 by Dave T

[Balmain1969]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I should clarify, many of the people I refer to have been Scottish, so they absolutely had no idea what was going on in some of the games

Enjoy the WC Dave

[Dave T]

Just now, Balmain1969 said:

Enjoy the WC Dave

You too mate. 

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's certainly become that. But I do think it is a slightly different discussion. 

I think I made the point right at the start. 

I am OK with squad numbers, or no squad numbers. 

My issue has been the Aussies trashing it (and they are actively doing it in the media now), because they don't like it. Sometimes we don't get our preference, we crack on and get on with it. But the Aussies have done a weird thing and then moaned that they were forced into it, despite no one else following them. 

On the periphery stuff, like I say, I enjoy the element of uncertainty around the team naming, right up to kick off. But I suspect that is based on my view of tradition. Having a few beers at the pub in advance, wondering whether Tomkins will play at 1, or Sneyd or Welsby will partner Williams etc. And then finding out either when the BBC tell us or when announced at the ground. I enjoy that part of it, but I wouldn't have an issue if the team was known a day or two earlier. 

And I also accept that I may be more forgiving of what the Aussies have done due to my dislike of the squad numbering system (but I will stress again, a dislike because I think it is an own goal by the sport).

I look at the line ups on NRL.com and the Aussie line up looks stupid as it has the players in the right positions but stupid numbers and the England line up with Tom Burgess at halfback as he was the 7th name listed.

I just think the whole mess could have been avoided.

It is probably the only thing I have been negative about on the whole World Cup organisation though.

[Jonty58]

I dislike the squad numbering system for our game.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

It is probably the only thing I have been negative about on the whole World Cup organisation though.

On that point I think you are being too forgiving mate! 

[Dunbar]

Just now, Dave T said:

On that point I think you are being too forgiving mate! 

Forgiving of myself? I can't think of anything else I have been negative about when it comes to the organisation of the World Cup.

Or forgiving of the organisation itself?

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Forgiving of myself? I can't think of anything else I have been negative about when it comes to the organisation of the World Cup.

Or forgiving of the organisation itself?

 The organisation. I worry we are heading for some real disappointments, but not sure if that is an inbuilt RL defence mechanism kicking in!

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 The organisation. I worry we are heading for some real disappointments, but not sure if that is an inbuilt RL defence mechanism kicking in!

I guess we will see.  I am not sure the organisers could have done much more than they have to be honest.

I think we will see a good start on Saturday.  Both Newcastle and Leeds will look good on tv and I think we will have a good first day.  After that there may be a lull but the momentum will build in the quarter finals on.

On the whole, I am hugely optimistic for this competition. 

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I guess we will see.  I am not sure the organisers could have done much more than they have to be honest.

I think we will see a good start on Saturday.  Both Newcastle and Leeds will look good on tv and I think we will have a good first day.  After that there may be a lull but the momentum will build in the quarter finals on.

On the whole, I am hugely optimistic for this competition. 

There is clearly a lot to like, but the tournament needs to look better than 2013 and not go backwards to be like 2000.

I'm incredibly excited about tomorrow and hope a good start gets the tournament flying.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There is clearly a lot to like, but the tournament needs to look better than 2013 and not go backwards to be like 2000.

I'm incredibly excited about tomorrow and hope a good start gets the tournament flying.

Tomorrow of course, I said Saturday but it's tomorrow now.  I am now getting really excited / nervous now.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, Balmain1969 said:

That's because they've got no clue what's going on, my friends know that number 5 is the winger 

Anyway, enough of this, bring on the WC!!!!

If your friend knows that winger is a position, it's probably fair to say that he knows the person that is standing on the wing is likely the winger!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

New fans won't be aware of positions. They will not know that a 7 is a scrum half, or what a scrum half is. If the scrum half moves position in the game, what use is the number then?

 

What if useful for new fans is to know WHO the players are. Now I've not seen much NRL this season, so I don't even know what Farnworth looks like off the top of my head. What I do know is he's #4, so I can look out for him so tournament. With other squads of players I'll never have heard of, I can keep up with the same players I've watched in earlier games in the tournament easier because I know they'll be the same number.

If you understand the game, you know what position players are in without looking at the numbers because of where they are on the pitch. If you don't understand the game, positions are pretty meaningless anyway. The biggest competitions in the world use squad numbers because the player recognition is more important than position recognition (squad numbers allow you to put names on the shirt for the entire tournament also, making names again more recognisable).

 

The announcement of squads (whether it is numerical, alphabetical or by position) is a completely separate issue. I seriously don't get why it keeps being brought up as an argument against squad numbers.

 

And the obvious benefit (even though small, but maybe not to some poorer nations) is that the sizes of shirts will always be the same if you have numbered squads, so they'll fit better! There's some huge size differences between players even in the same positions. I reckon it will get pretty expensive buying a new shirt for each one, and look pretty ridiculous if you use the same shirt for different players! Not an issue in multi million pound clubs, but those on a budget...

[Spidey]

What position is number 13?   Are they an extra prop or a ball playing forward?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

What position is number 13?   Are they an extra prop or a ball playing forward?

And what if I want to play my hooker as an extra front row, but use one of my half backs as a dummy half?

What number do I make them?

[Dunbar]

4 hours ago, Spidey said:

What position is number 13?   Are they an extra prop or a ball playing forward?

 

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

And what if I want to play my hooker as an extra front row, but use one of my half backs as a dummy half?

What number do I make them?

What these posts show is that there is variable and nuisance in the Rugby League positions.  Ironically, this comes from the fact that you know the roles of a Rugby League player and so a 13 can be a ball handling middle, an extra prop, or both.  All we are really doing is making it harder for future fans of our sport to get to where we are now. That for me feels wrong.

As for knowing the names of the players or the position they are playing, I will take the latter every day of the week.  When I see Lebanon play Ireland I am not particularly worried about the names of the players but I would like to identify which half is dominant or which edge forward is getting on top.

The same when I watch the early round of the Challenge Cup or the Southern Conference games.  I don't know the names of any players but I can see a game unfolding based on the identification of the positions.

Surely when coaches are speaking with young kids about Rugby League and tactics, they are saying "go watch how a number 7 controls the game" or how the full back times his entry into the line.  When I was a kid I watched hours of Rugby League learning all the plays and skills by identifying positions through numbers.  This is all lost now.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

It's certainly become that. But I do think it is a slightly different discussion. 

I think I made the point right at the start. 

I am OK with squad numbers, or no squad numbers. 

My issue has been the Aussies trashing it (and they are actively doing it in the media now), because they don't like it. Sometimes we don't get our preference, we crack on and get on with it. But the Aussies have done a weird thing and then moaned that they were forced into it, despite no one else following them. 

On the periphery stuff, like I say, I enjoy the element of uncertainty around the team naming, right up to kick off. But I suspect that is based on my view of tradition. Having a few beers at the pub in advance, wondering whether Tomkins will play at 1, or Sneyd or Welsby will partner Williams etc. And then finding out either when the BBC tell us or when announced at the ground. I enjoy that part of it, but I wouldn't have an issue if the team was known a day or two earlier. 

Yup. Just the infantile Aussie mindset in full flow. Bunch of muppets. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What these posts show is that there is variable and nuisance in the Rugby League positions.  Ironically, this comes from the fact that you know the roles of a Rugby League player and so a 13 can be a ball handling middle, an extra prop, or both.  All we are really doing is making it harder for future fans of our sport to get to where we are now. That for me feels wrong.

You're saying a 13 can play as an 8 or a 10 without having the number, can also play as a 6 or 7. So what's the point in the number? A 9 can play as a 6 or 7 or even a 1. Positions are not always set, they are fluid. To work out how they're playing, you observe the game, not the number. Same as in football. Players positions and teams strategies aren't as black and white as the numbers on their back.

You know what is always the same? The player in the shirt.

22 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As for knowing the names of the players or the position they are playing, I will take the latter every day of the week.  When I see Lebanon play Ireland I am not particularly worried about the names of the players but I would like to identify which half is dominant or which edge forward is getting on top.

Surely you identify which half is dominant by observing the game, not the number? Pretty obvious that the guy getting the ball and making the plays is the half and the guy in the wing is the winger, etc. A new fan won't be familiar with the positional names anyway 

Plus, as I have said numerous times, if there's a strategy change or injuries before the kick off, the numbers end up being different to the traditional positions anyway. Number 20? Where does he play? He's been in since kick off.

I'd rather be able to quickly identify who is who and build that recognition up over the 7 weeks (and 30+ weeks in the league here).

26 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The same when I watch the early round of the Challenge Cup or the Southern Conference games.  I don't know the names of any players but I can see a game unfolding based on the identification of the positions.

Again, surely you can see a game unfolding based on where those players are on the pitch and the strategy they are using? The fact someone is a prop is meaningless. It's what the prop does that matters surely m

 

28 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Surely when coaches are speaking with young kids about Rugby League and tactics, they are saying "go watch how a number 7 controls the game" or how the full back times his entry into the line.  When I was a kid I watched hours of Rugby League learning all the plays and skills by identifying positions through numbers.  This is all lost now.

You just said "watch how a full back joins the line." No need to say the number. If you say a "number 1" and he's been switched to half back, surely that's counter productive as the youngster will be watching the wrong position?

Unless they switch shirts when they switch positions, the whole idea of it identifying positions is very inconsistent and ultimately relies on observation anyway They might as well just have FB, W1, C1, C2, etc... on their back if it's about position, surely that would be better?

 

Please don't think I'm having a go, by the way. I'm enjoying listening to other people's perspectives on this and challenging them as well as having my own challenged. It's a good discussion.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

9 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yup. Just the infantile Aussie mindset in full flow. Bunch of muppets. 

The irony will be if people start to recognise the players throughout the tournament by those numbers and they become more well-known

It's strange, but it's their prerogative.

 

Out of interest, did the numbers given have to be 1-24? Can they not give out up to 99? And if not, would this be an issue?

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Please don't think I'm having a go, by the way. I'm enjoying listening to other people's perspectives on this and challenging them as well as having my own challenged. It's a good discussion.

Of course.  It is a well mannered discussion. 

One of the things I hate about Rugby League is that it is often criticised as a simple game.. 26 people running into each other.

Nothing can be further from the truth.  When hear an articulate coach or player explaining the thought processes behind every play, every decision, you see that it is extremely tactical - with dozens of permutations on every play.

And often these permutations are based around a certain role.  Going to the front man (11 or 12) on an edge play or the half (6 or 7) taking the line on if the defenders hips are lost too quickly, or going out the back to the full back (1) or centre (3 or 4) to execute a 3 on 2 to get their winger (2 or 5) into the corner.

The roles execute these plays.  The variable in every game is the player in each shirt but the roles execute the plays.

I just can't help feeling with the squad numbers we are losing this sense of understanding (as I say, for those learning the game, people who could become as passionate as we are) and turning it into 26 men running around. 

We know it's not.  Everyone who understands Rugby League knows it's not. I want everyone to know it's not.