Positional Ideals

by Geordie Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:47 pm

I noticed with interest on several posts that people have different opinions on positions....

I was curious to know...do most people have set ideas of how each position should be played...ie 6 should be a physical animal, who tackles like a tank and is good at the lineout. Or A winger should be electric with an outrageous sidestep...

OR

Do people look at how a player can make the position aid the team. Ie Matt Banahan...not greatly liked..and not your average winger, but could be a huge weapon...with high ball catches, taking 3 defenders out on crash balls etc...so a different role to a traditional winger?

by red_stag Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:51 pm

I think overall few people think that a player in this position HAS to do things a certain way. Usually they will accept a player once it benefits the team.

i.e. They could turn a blind eye to a flyhalf with a poor goal kicking rate because he is a great playmaker.

Or a 12 who can't pass well but is a very destructive runner. There are loads of examples.

However the one area I see little flexibility is with the backrow. Lots of people seem to buy into that 6 is the aggressive tackler, 7 is the breakdown specialist and 8 is the ball carrier who links up with the backs.

by **Biltong** Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:59 pm

I don't subscribe to a fetcher.

I think combinations are more important, you need to balance, physicality with some pace and skill.

If I were to pick my SA backrow, it would be: Burger, for his physicality in defence, his workrate and his offloading, Juan Smith for his hard work at the breakdown, his defence and speed and Alberts for his incredible physicality.

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:11 pm

You look at the cover on the bench for a team and there you have an idea on which positions require specialist players, and therefore offer little flexibility. Outside of those positions, combinations of players around them dictate what kind of player you can have. Nonu or SBW is allowed to operate with Smith outside them, McCaw can do his thing knowing Read and Messam are doing another job, Dagg can play with the reliability and strength of Jane and Gear outside him. These players can be shifted round so long as the balance remains the same. Put the same kind of player together and you lose that balance.

by Geordie Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:20 pm

Interesting...so its more balance of the combinations.

It doesnt matter if the 7 is a fetcher or a tackler...or if the 8 is a ball carrier...aslong as in the trio all those jobs are fulfilled?

And equally...Midfield - 12 or 13 can be the playmaker or the physical one...as long as the jobs are done as a combo?

by chewed_mintie Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:21 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You look at the cover on the bench for a team and there you have an idea on which positions require specialist players, and therefore offer little flexibility. Outside of those positions, combinations of players around them dictate what kind of player you can have. Nonu or SBW is allowed to operate with Smith outside them, McCaw can do his thing knowing Read and Messam are doing another job, Dagg can play with the reliability and strength of Jane and Gear outside him. These players can be shifted round so long as the balance remains the same. Put the same kind of player together and you lose that balance.

You've explained precisely why our back for of Wilson, Lomu, Umaga and Cullen failed miserably at the 99 WC!!

by **Biltong** Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:25 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Interesting...so its more balance of the combinations.

It doesnt matter if the 7 is a fetcher or a tackler...or if the 8 is a ball carrier...aslong as in the trio all those jobs are fulfilled?

And equally...Midfield - 12 or 13 can be the playmaker or the physical one...as long as the jobs are done as a combo?

Pretty much yes, although I like my playmaker at 12, he can act as a second flyhalf, 13 needs a bit of pace about him, and a good step.

by Rory_Gallagher Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:33 pm

Many people seem to forget that many opensides actually make the most tackles in a game too. McCaw often has the highest tackle count. Now he also seems to top the carries and defenders beaten too. He is the complete all arounder.

by **Biltong** Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:36 pm

Exactly Rory, you can't be the pilferer if you made a tackle and are at the bottom of a ruck anyway.

We have had this discussion before, any player no matter his position, if he is the first arrival after the tackle, he becomes the pilferer.

by Rory_Gallagher Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:38 pm

Also, the best 8s in the world nowadays don't seem to be massive wrecking balls either, but rather clever support players who rely on pace and athleticism rather than brute strength. Read, Harionordoquy, Parisse etc come to mind.

Most of the best 6s seem to offer that raw physicality needed in the pack rather than the 8. It really does depend on combinations and the team though. I don't agree one bit that the back row cannot be flexible. Every team has very different combinations.

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:50 pm

It works for you Biltong to have a playmaker at 12 but it'd help if he got some better service from his 10. NZ has Smith as the backline puppet master but is allowed to operate with the defensive and distribution afforded him by Nonu or SBW.

That is why Adam Thomson is being shabbily treated. He's the form 6 in NZ probably but he's too much of a likeness when put alongside Read and McCaw. Balance is the key rather than having the best individuals in every position. If you're like oil and water together as a combination, you're not going to be working cohesively as a unit. Positions have certain criteria to be fulfilled but they need to be looked at globally as units in your overall squad. If there's no oil between your individual parts, then you get a great big creaking behemoth that can be isolated and worked over.

by disneychilly Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:56 pm

The 13 has to be an intelligent defensive organiser. Too much traffic goes in that direction to have a passenger there. We've stuffed up three World Cups picking the wrong people there amongst other things. The most devastating back four of all time and three out of position. Stupidity. Umaga at 13 and Cullen at 15.

9: to have a bullet pass. We haven't had one for 16 years.

The role of the 7 being a lithe out and out fetcher has moved on-you can see how effective McCaw still is for evidence of that, and Brüssow being left out.

The 4 needs to be a big scrummaging brute, and he and the 6 need to clean up the rucks.

The 10 needs to be Dan Carter. Simple.

ALL players should be able to catch and pass and to put a player in space. It's a 15 man game, all 15 can get their hands on the ball. NZ have scored so many tries originating from forwards being able to pass the ball onto the chest of the next oncoming runner-it often comes from turnovers and starts try scoring movements.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:58 pm

The one that gets me is when people get so anal about the difference between inside and outside centre, or openside and blindside flanker.

I personally believe that in the centre you should have one player who is happy to take the ball into contact, and is a bit of a crash ball merchant, and you should ahve another player who is constantly looking to see where other players are and who trys to bring other players in from out side. However I think that it then depends on who is playing at fly half, and the team tactics, as to who plays inside centre or outside centre. For example if you have a fly half who is a bit flimsy, and needs a physical presence to offload awkward ball to, then you should feild the bigger centre at inside centre. But if you fly half is not the best distribution-wise play the more aware centre at inside centre.

And likewise the flankers need to have ballence between them. But the only time there is really a difference between open and blindside is at the scrum, as that is actually where they are blind or open side. And IMO the whoever is faster of the back of the scrum should be openside (unless they are pretty even in which case left/right flank) as the openside is closer to where the ball should be going from the base of the scrum. In open play as long as you have at least one flanker who is willing to make the hard carries, and one who is willing to be a link man (or ideally two players capable of doing both), and in defense you have one who is willing to keep tackling all day, and one who is willing to put his head and hands into the path of danger to get the ball (again ideally two players who can do both).

by nganboy Tue 21 Aug 2012, 2:12 am

I disagree with you a bit there Kia about Thompson.
He is not being selected because he is not a great no6. He's a 7 and we already have a good 7.

by emack2 Tue 21 Aug 2012, 3:37 am

The problem is that IF you have a great player with a certain skill set in a position his replacement has to be exactly the same.Take Kaino at 6 at the end he had become abrasive,BUT it was only in his last year.Like most NZ Loosies he covers all 3 positions,Thomson is an excellent player.BUT he isn`t Kaino you say he`s a 7 and you already have one.McCaw is now playing like a 6 ,if Thomson and Read are the other 2 what does it matter the number on there back.What matters is UNIT skills.Number 8 when I was young was referred to as LOCK.He locked the Scrum,controlled the ball there.Lineout tailend charlie,and linked with his backs.Mid field in NH 12 and 13 used to be a cruncher at 12,a creator at 13.In NZ 10 and 12 had the same skill set the 13 was a specialist.THE most important thing was creating space for the wings to score over the years the laws have changed.Tactics and players adapting to there styles.One of the greatest wings ever was Peter Jackson not the greatest speedster.BUT quickness of thought meant he scored tons of tries,Johnny Smith was legend another who used his brain to score or set up people.
Henny Muller was a great tactical innovator but he was a 7 not a traditional 8 and so on.Often your best loose forward is your Hooker!!! team plans making the best of your players abilities is what does it every time.THE most important thing at test level is ALL PLayers can do the basics well.Pass,tackle,kick,safe under the high ball.Locks need scrum and Lineout skills first,and the grunt stuff before becoming seagulls.Props should be able to scrummage first,do line out support work,even jump themselves.

by Taylorman Tue 21 Aug 2012, 4:54 am

Who's Peter Jackson Alan? AB?

The only Peter that was any good was Peter henderson back then, and he was a speedster...

by ChequeredJersey Tue 21 Aug 2012, 8:49 am

Biltong wrote:Exactly Rory, you can't be the pilferer if you made a tackle and are at the bottom of a ruck anyway.

We have had this discussion before, any player no matter his position, if he is the first arrival after the tackle, he becomes the pilferer.

Actually you can if you are McCaw. One of his ridiculous abilities is to make a tackle in such a way that he can snap to his feet and be the first man at the ruck too

by ChequeredJersey Tue 21 Aug 2012, 8:53 am

Emack, I'm not sure there is such a thing as playing like a 6. McCaw is playing like McCaw

by emack2 Tue 21 Aug 2012, 3:16 pm

Peter "Nikolai" Jackson ,Northampton,England,and star winger 1959 British Lions
in Nz and Australia.Heinz57 [Tony O`Reilly]between them scored 36 tries on that tour."Heinz 19",and "Nikolai"17,England wingers of the era Ted Woodward a run over them merchant expert at the Maori side step.John Young an out an out sprinter.Jackson pure Genius had more ways to beat a man then any i`ve ever heard of bar Johnny Smith a tragedy I never saw him[JB}.Peter Henderson a very good AllBlack wing in the immediate postwar era.

by robbo277 Tue 21 Aug 2012, 5:56 pm

My coach is a big fan of the ideal that - after the set piece - only 9 and 10 have a set position, and that is to give a bit of structure to the team. After that though it doesn't matter if you've got 1 or 11 on your back, you do whatever job is required of you as it is required of you.

Obviously you still try to pick a balanced team, some players who are strong in the set piece, some people who are strong at the ruck, some play-makers, some people who are happy carrying/tackling in the tight exchanges and some people who are more comfortable in space, but after that it doesn't really matter too much. Obviously you try and get your play-makers into ball-playing positions and your strike-runners operating off them, but at any moment your play-making centre might have to take a crash ball and your big prop might have to execute a 3-on-2, so try not to get too hung up about the number on your back or pre-defined roles.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 21 Aug 2012, 5:59 pm

Combinations and balance are more important than "ideals" as most seemed to have picked up above.

Sure, you're unlikely to be a successful prop at 15 stone and 7ft, but you don't have to be 20 stone to be part of a great front row.

by emack2 Tue 21 Aug 2012, 9:03 pm

MY point is the 6 does`nt have to be a certain style because the predecessor was [as an example].Thomson is NOT a 7 it was tried and failed in the past when McCaw was injured.Like Masoe,Luaki,Messam,O`Siaolom,Vito ,he is a utilty loose forward his preferred position is 6.His great asset is his line out skills playing left and right with McCaw allows both to use there skills more,he is also a ferocious tackler.Messam is a bit like Spies a great athlete but not sure of his best position.Were he not not a member of the Chiefs I doubt on his past record he`d have been condsidered.

by ChequeredJersey Tue 21 Aug 2012, 9:06 pm

Against SA I hope you play Cane and McCaw together. SA have been vulnerable at the breakdown and that combo should get dominance there. Unless Cane is too slight to deal with SA's physicality

by emack2 Tue 21 Aug 2012, 10:26 pm

Why would you play a forward with only half a game versus the two most physical sides.They will try to blast there way thru counter rucking she`ll be right.

by drsambo1928 Thu 23 Aug 2012, 9:55 pm

In my opinion, every position has a different role from one another even if they are similar or even the same, like with the LH and TH props, the LH should be more explossive and that bit more mobile while the TH should be solid as a rock and spared from getting involved too much in the loose while the LH dosent have such a priviledge.
In the second rows one player should be a classy line out operator while the other second row should be a nasty piece of work for the opposition. Likewise with the centres, one should be silky smooth and the other should be a battering ram.
And with the wingers should have one small jinky one and one big hard running one on the other side.
In the backrow I feel the combination should be 6 as the hard hitter, 7 as the ground hog and 8 as the wrecking ball with ball in hand. I feel the same type of player for the position could lead to problems like two nasty operators in the second row, who is gonna win the lineouts? They are my positional ideals for a successfull team and arguably, some successfull teams have employed the majority of these positional descriptions.

by dummy_half Fri 24 Aug 2012, 10:00 am

drsambo

I think many of us would largely agree with that, although to be fair some teams (Ireland over the last several years for one) have managed to deviate quite a bit from the template with regard to back row (basically playing 3 players of similar skill sets) and the centre combination (two relatively lightweight and skillful players - OK, BOD in particular played above his weight). During this period they'v ehad one of their most successful periods.

Wales current backline doesn't exactly fit your description either - more like:
Big SH
Moderately big FH
Big IC
Big OC
Big LW
Big RW
Smaller and jinky FB (at least if 1/2p is picked there)

by thebluesmancometh Fri 24 Aug 2012, 10:01 am

I think positions are all BS, there is no set structure to any position, no set ideal of what every position has to give, and coaches who realize that tend to shape the way the game goes.

There were no 'fetchers' until Mccaw inspired.
Nonu and Roberts have changed the way 12's play.
Robinson and Alexander were a breath of fresh air for front rows
Ashtons made a career off of running 7 type lines of support.

IMO coaches at junior levels just reinforce the international trends of the day (to the NH detriment IMO) and by the time the 'elite' junior players reach the better quality coaches the emphasis has shifted from skill aqcuisition to performance and it's too late!

by ScarletSpiderman Fri 24 Aug 2012, 11:46 am

thebluesmancometh wrote:I think positions are all BS, there is no set structure to any position, no set ideal of what every position has to give, and coaches who realize that tend to shape the way the game goes.

There were no 'fetchers' until Mccaw inspired.
Nonu and Roberts have changed the way 12's play.
Robinson and Alexander were a breath of fresh air for front rows
Ashtons made a career off of running 7 type lines of support.

IMO coaches at junior levels just reinforce the international trends of the day (to the NH detriment IMO) and by the time the 'elite' junior players reach the better quality coaches the emphasis has shifted from skill aqcuisition to performance and it's too late!

+1

Personally I think it is easier to break it down to

Props/Hookers
Second/backrow
Halfbacks
Widebacks

As the general skills required for those groups of positions are more or less the same, it is then how players fit in with others etc that determines their position in that group.

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:03 pm

Not sure about no set structure. Other than a quick throw in, a hooker needs to be able to throw a ball into the lineout. Looks easy but many have failed trying. How many players are there in the world who are genuinely able to play both tighthead and loosehead? Rarer than hen's teeth. At restarts, a lock doesn't lift up a prop to take the ball. There is some set structure you have to follow.

But I agree with what you say in general. A hooker, prop or centre in the modern game should be just as likely to steal ball in the fetcher role as much as an openside. A lock forward should be capable of putting a player into space with a deft pass, a back should know how to operate as a loose forward if his team mate on the ground is isolated.

There are basic skills that many players seem incapable of performing - a draw and pass, having the ball in the right hand (right as in correct) when diving for the corner, body position, handling etc - and I agree that there is a danger of pigeon holing players into positions and telling them this is what you need to be concentrating on and the end result is you starve them of any freedom to assess a situation in a game and look to exploit it. You limit yourself to doing only what you've been taught to do instead of assessing how can I best help my team mates in this situation.

It's like reading the Karma Sutra and then have someone tell you just stick to the missionary position and you can't go wrong. You're limiting yourself and the enjoyment as well as your effectiveness in the game.

by Geordie Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:18 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:I think positions are all BS, there is no set structure to any position, no set ideal of what every position has to give, and coaches who realize that tend to shape the way the game goes.

There were no 'fetchers' until Mccaw inspired.
Nonu and Roberts have changed the way 12's play.
Robinson and Alexander were a breath of fresh air for front rows
Ashtons made a career off of running 7 type lines of support.

IMO coaches at junior levels just reinforce the international trends of the day (to the NH detriment IMO) and by the time the 'elite' junior players reach the better quality coaches the emphasis has shifted from skill aqcuisition to performance and it's too late!

There were no 'fetchers' until Mccaw inspired - Really?...i think there were one or two...he certainly wasnt the first.
Nonu and Roberts have changed the way 12's play. - Like Sella and Horan before them...
Robinson and Alexander were a breath of fresh air for front rows - What props who cant scrummage? Great for the game....
Ashtons made a career off of running 7 type lines of support - But is derided for it as being a rubbish unskillful winger...

by thebluesmancometh Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:19 pm

Kia

That isn't set structure though, that is common structure.

Theres no directive to say that the hooker has to throw in the lineout. If your best lineout thrower is your SH then I can see positives for him doing so.

Every loosehead in the world can play tighthead, maybe not well to the tradition of the tighthead role, but a different type of TH role and will add a lot around the park. Take the Aus scrum, it's poor but learns how to direct the scrum away from the pushing element, allowing for 2 mobile and ball playing props.

Noone lifts a prop because of their weight, but if Evans and Charteris lifted George North (3 huge men one of which great under a high ball) would that not be more effective than Jenkins Jones lifting Evans?

Even basic skills are based on traditional beleifs of the best way to perform certain tasks.

Take for example the spiral kick, all but dead in this day and age but if a junior had a monster of a spiral with pin point accuracy? Should that be encouraged and told to be worked on for distance and accuracy, or told it's wrong and he has to punt the ball like everyone else?

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:25 pm

What, pray do tell, is the difference between set and common structure. A SH doesn't throw the ball in because who would be there to receive it? A scrum half should have the best clearing pass in the team (unfortunately NZ for so many years didn't have this). Every loosehead can play tighthead but the fact that almost none of them plays both sides to the same level suggests you need a special skillset to play each one. The Australians are masters of negating the scrum because they need to be!

by thebluesmancometh Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:25 pm

Geordie

Which 'fetcher' managed to perform to Mccaws degree, and with such a dominance around the breakdown?

Are you really comparing Nonu and Roberts ability to tie up defenders and dominate teams gameplans in the modern era to Sella?

Robinson and Alexander are not destructive scrummagers, but they are the best rugby playing props areound IMO. Look at their try scoring rates and some of the tries they score. The are very well rounded players!

Ashton is derided for being an unskillfull winger because of his poor work on the wing. He created a splash (excuse the pun) for running support line and tracking play of which noone had really seen a winger do with such ferocity before.

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:30 pm

Michael Jones, Josh Kronfeld are celebrated players in NZ and rightly so. Michael Jones also played 8 and 6 and many are pushing McCaw to come in at 6 for NZ. For many Jones is still the pick. But as he comes from Auckland and McCaw comes from Canterbury I'll just say the two are legends of the game and it's an honour to have seen both in black... and Richie is better because he embodies all that is good and pure like the tap water of Christchurch used to be before the earthquake. Run

by thebluesmancometh Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:32 pm

Kia

You only need your SH there at such speed if you play off the top ball, and then you can play it to a forward hitting the line at pace. In general off the top ball doesn't go wide because you've tied nobody up and the defence will cover easily. Any SH that can't throw in the ball and jog the 7 metres or so to the ensuing ball play has problems!!! It's the same as teams these days pushing their hookers out of the 5m channel for a SH because they can do the job these days.

Set structures are directives and laws of the game, everything else is up for discussion, and as the game evolves and trends change so do teams gameplans and tactics.

I personally feel the only team to set trends these days are the AB's as their junior system develops the best playing players in all positions, allowing them for the playing roster to develop differing gameplans and ideas. Everyone else is just playing catchup and copying essentially what they do, except for the one key area, the junior design!!

by Geordie Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:33 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Geordie

Which 'fetcher' managed to perform to Mccaws degree, and with such a dominance around the breakdown?

Are you really comparing Nonu and Roberts ability to tie up defenders and dominate teams gameplans in the modern era to Sella?

Robinson and Alexander are not destructive scrummagers, but they are the best rugby playing props areound IMO. Look at their try scoring rates and some of the tries they score. The are very well rounded players!

Ashton is derided for being an unskillfull winger because of his poor work on the wing. He created a splash (excuse the pun) for running support line and tracking play of which noone had really seen a winger do with such ferocity before.

George Smith, Neil Back...

In a purely physical sense maybe not...but Sella was a magician who along with Horan changed the game at 12...Roberts and Nonu have merely added the physicality to it...

Scoring tries, non destructive scrummagers...they should be flankers, centres or play rugby league. I want my props to be scrummaging animals...i want a front row that would scrum against a pack of rhinos...

I have defended ashton so many times on here...saying exactly that...that his running lines IS a skills that should be applauded and that England dont use enough of as a weapon...but i have been slated every time...

by thebluesmancometh Fri 24 Aug 2012, 12:46 pm

Well your right about Smith and Back, but neither were as effective as Mccaw has been.

But thats my point, Nonu and Roberts now dominate their teams gameplans, 9 plays to 12 on a crash and the backline resets on the loop with opposing defence tied in. They have literally re written the way teams play and go about tieing players in and exploiting it.

The Welsh wing options now are a different breed, providing crash options and tking different defencive responsibilities as most have before them. Everyteam on the planet wanted a Lomu type, but now they have him who can offer much more than he did, they run set lines, the take the ball into the midfeild and run supporting line like never before.

Re Ashton, your right, running the lines he did is a skill, but not one England are not using at present, it's more a case of defences knowing how he wants to play and adapting to it comfortably, and he's failed to adapt to that. Like Andy Powell, he looked great building up speed for a few yards before finding a defender, the effective blitz has killed him off and he hasn't been able to adapt.

by maestegmafia Tue 28 Aug 2012, 9:38 am

Good post.

I'm definitely of the later, in Wales we fail to regularly produce large players that typify the pre-ordained character of a position.

This has lead to some rather different players ranging from diminutive phill Bennett and Shane Williams, to the monsterous Mike Phillips.

by TJ1 Tue 28 Aug 2012, 9:39 am

disneychilly wrote:T

The 10 needs to be Dan Carter. Simple.

.

by TJ1 Tue 28 Aug 2012, 9:44 am

I find it strange how fixed coaches are in the positioning of players and the types of players wanted. some roles are clearly more specialist than others but where is the innovation? the "total rugby" to match the "total football"

I was very disappointed that no real innovations appeared in the WC. where is the imagination?

by Geordie Tue 28 Aug 2012, 12:35 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Well your right about Smith and Back, but neither were as effective as Mccaw has been.

But thats my point, Nonu and Roberts now dominate their teams gameplans, 9 plays to 12 on a crash and the backline resets on the loop with opposing defence tied in. They have literally re written the way teams play and go about tieing players in and exploiting it.

The Welsh wing options now are a different breed, providing crash options and tking different defencive responsibilities as most have before them. Everyteam on the planet wanted a Lomu type, but now they have him who can offer much more than he did, they run set lines, the take the ball into the midfeild and run supporting line like never before.

Re Ashton, your right, running the lines he did is a skill, but not one England are not using at present, it's more a case of defences knowing how he wants to play and adapting to it comfortably, and he's failed to adapt to that. Like Andy Powell, he looked great building up speed for a few yards before finding a defender, the effective blitz has killed him off and he hasn't been able to adapt.

Would you say though Blues, that this can be a negative aswell that they could be labled predicatable...and lack the x-factor that a williams, robinson etc smaller trickier wingers can offer?

by ScarletSpiderman Tue 28 Aug 2012, 12:44 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:
thebluesmancometh wrote:Well your right about Smith and Back, but neither were as effective as Mccaw has been.

But thats my point, Nonu and Roberts now dominate their teams gameplans, 9 plays to 12 on a crash and the backline resets on the loop with opposing defence tied in. They have literally re written the way teams play and go about tieing players in and exploiting it.

The Welsh wing options now are a different breed, providing crash options and tking different defencive responsibilities as most have before them. Everyteam on the planet wanted a Lomu type, but now they have him who can offer much more than he did, they run set lines, the take the ball into the midfeild and run supporting line like never before.

Re Ashton, your right, running the lines he did is a skill, but not one England are not using at present, it's more a case of defences knowing how he wants to play and adapting to it comfortably, and he's failed to adapt to that. Like Andy Powell, he looked great building up speed for a few yards before finding a defender, the effective blitz has killed him off and he hasn't been able to adapt.

Would you say though Blues, that this can be a negative aswell that they could be labled predicatable...and lack the x-factor that a williams, robinson etc smaller trickier wingers can offer?

Geordie - A number of the massive wingers are actually far more capable of skilled wing play than they get credit for. North may well be a big lad, but if you watch him you will see that most of the time he attempts to just out run his opposite number before taking the more physical option if required. I think it is because they have that extra string to their bow that people overlook their other abilities.

by Geordie Tue 28 Aug 2012, 1:06 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
thebluesmancometh wrote:Well your right about Smith and Back, but neither were as effective as Mccaw has been.

But thats my point, Nonu and Roberts now dominate their teams gameplans, 9 plays to 12 on a crash and the backline resets on the loop with opposing defence tied in. They have literally re written the way teams play and go about tieing players in and exploiting it.

The Welsh wing options now are a different breed, providing crash options and tking different defencive responsibilities as most have before them. Everyteam on the planet wanted a Lomu type, but now they have him who can offer much more than he did, they run set lines, the take the ball into the midfeild and run supporting line like never before.

Re Ashton, your right, running the lines he did is a skill, but not one England are not using at present, it's more a case of defences knowing how he wants to play and adapting to it comfortably, and he's failed to adapt to that. Like Andy Powell, he looked great building up speed for a few yards before finding a defender, the effective blitz has killed him off and he hasn't been able to adapt.

Would you say though Blues, that this can be a negative aswell that they could be labled predicatable...and lack the x-factor that a williams, robinson etc smaller trickier wingers can offer?

Geordie - A number of the massive wingers are actually far more capable of skilled wing play than they get credit for. North may well be a big lad, but if you watch him you will see that most of the time he attempts to just out run his opposite number before taking the more physical option if required. I think it is because they have that extra string to their bow that people overlook their other abilities.

Very possibly Scarlet

by maestegmafia Tue 28 Aug 2012, 2:15 pm

Think of the Jon Davies try vs Ireland last six nations. Beautiful skills by George. Cuthbert has some great foot work too.

Both huge lumps.

by Sponsored content