A patient build up.

http://v2journal.com/a-patient-build-up.html

Look at the difference between the All Black squads that won their two world cups, nothing shows the chasm that has developed between the professional, semi-pro and amateur player quite so clearly.

The '87 All Blacks were fit, lean, skilful, and amateur. Farmers, lawyers, PE teachers, they were a cut above their contemporaries. But an international team that prepared in the way they did would be torn apart today.

The 2011 All Blacks were bulky, well drilled, disciplined, bruisers. All professional players, no stone was left unturned in their preparation. But, they were boring.

Rugby has gained an awful lot since professionalism. Players are bigger, stronger and fitter. This is not a dirge to traditions lost. Some of rugby's most cherished traditions died in the 80's before open professionalism. However for all its gains rugby is just not the same anymore.

I watched Ulster demolish the Cardiff Blues on Friday. The analyst employed was the long standing coach of a professional team until recently. I felt he was talking a different language to me, the humble punter.

Rugby to him is like Lego. To score a try you have to build a tower. Every piece has to be in its place. You can't score a try unless you have drawn in the defence, crossed the gain line, gone through the phases. If a fumbling prop, spoiling opposition or poor refereeing decision knock down the tower, look for the 'obtain possession' block then the 'improve field position' block, and start again.

Just when I was getting thoroughly depressed at the soulless, repetitive, pattern building, an Ulster player broke all the rules. He picked up the little used and almost forgotten block marked 'flair' from the far corner of the box and tossed it over the tower. Jared Payne with an audacious chip over the defence ignored the 'pass inside to a forward' 'set it up' and 'go through the phases' blocks. He backed his own pace and skill. It was a joy to watch him collect on the bounce and dart to the line.

The analyst must have been thoroughly depressed; you can't coach that sort of thing.

So maybe the biggest gulf in the modern game is between the coach(es) in the stand and the ticket buying public sitting all around them. A conversation between them would probably result in both concluding the other didn't have a clue. Beware any sport that isolates itself from the fans.

Flair was always an intrinsic part of the game. The biggest names from the folklore of rugby are rarely front five players. Think of Cliff Morgan, Barry John, Mike Gibson, Mark Ella, Campese, Blanco, Van Der Westheizen, Carlos Spencer, Hugo Porta. The common theme is flair. Will Shane Williams' ilk be seen again?

Flair is what draws the fans. Even Blues fans I suspect will recall Payne's try and their own full back Dan Fish's classy chip and regather long after forgetting this result.

Modern rugby march on, but never forget the flair.

Good write up, although I will say, you really could only be a Scarlet!

It's being published as we speak if the feicing thing works!

Funnily enough Dreamer, most of my Scarlets mates accuse me of being conservative, forward orientated and a typical blydi prop.

http://v2journal.com/a-patient-build-up.html


Might want to add that to the OP.

Thomond, the end has been cut off I think.

Glas a du

I think you have overlooked the intensity and pace with which moves are put together in training sessions, these moves could not be invented without flair.

To suggest that the current All Blacks are boring is an interesting observation, and prompts one to ponder as to what you think they should be doing to to manufacture a more entertaining,skilful game played at pace for an entire 80 minutes?

And in closing it sounds like Jared payne is back to what he has be doing for the last 6 or 7 years. and I hope he is over the injury that deprived him from performing for his team last year.

Laurie, don't you think it's boring to see 'painting by numbers' moves pulled off due to hours of brain numbingly repetitive training? Moves calculated to mask blatant obstruction? OK it takes a certain organisational flair, but so does mass calisthenics. Defences are a lot better than they used to be but Payne just was struck by a moment of inspiration and he pulled it off. The sad thing is that if he had fumbled it a real strip would have been torn off him for wasting a good field position. I ask you!

One other important fundamental factor has been overlooked in this article. Organised Defences!

The introduction of specialist Rugby League defence coaches into the game of Rugby Union bought in Drift, Man for Man, Blitz, Umbrella, Banana (to name a few) defensive systems.

Rugby Union had to become more structured in order to commit defenders into contact in order to create space. It is not very often you witness tries being scored from set piece situations these days.


Rugby Union is more like a game of chess these days where stratergy in both offence and defence is of paramount importance

Glas a du wrote:Funnily enough Dreamer, most of my Scarlets mates accuse me of being conservative, forward orientated and a typical blydi prop.

Ah, you see, that's because you ARE a conservative, forward orientated, typical blydi prop.

Glas

Lovely piece and so blydi right as well

Flair is flair..and I supose that's why it is always in shorter supply than the 'workmanlike'/strategy and clinical patterns coaching approach.

We like flair because it isn't always on display - it sets the player and the action apart and gives us our gasping moments of awe.

But it's right to say you can't coach for it and therefore I don't see a lot of point in criticising coaches who don't have it as a staple of their 'systems'. Systems aren't there to exploit flair but to allow progress to be made in the absence of flair until flair shows its head.

Flair takes care of itself and every coach loves when it happens if he happens to be on the right side!

I can't agree with that Fly. Coaches love it when it comes off, but how many have the balls to say "ah, go out and make mistakes, because that shows you are trying something" as opposed to "if it isn't on don't do it, we must cut out the errors"

Players go out and make mistakes once and it's "well, you tried , son"

They go out and make mistakes a second time and its "Leave it alone, you're not able for it"

They go out and make mistakes a third time and the coach gets nervous: " I said quit it! You're not getting the heat, I am!"

They go out and make mistakes a fourth time and the coach gets a call: "Hey, moneybags here, do you want to stop them eejits making all those bloody mistakes there? Are you coaching them in the basics?"

They go out and make mistakes a fifth time and the crowd start booing ."

They go out and make mistakes a sixth time and the boss is back on the line to the coach: "Get your agent to keep an eye out for a job for you next season, there's a good man"

I'm being light hearted but in this cruel world of money and business there is a diminishing return to asking your players to express themselves and it not happening. Genuine flair is rare.

I agree with you in the idea that I want to see creativity and instinctiveness...I'm only saying that in practice, that kinda rarely happens in these modern densely populated playing fields with equally fast forwards and backs cutting down space all the time.

Yes, so why are the IRB encouraging less forwards in the rucks with their silly back foot laws instead of making the ruck and maul a good old fashioned scrap the forwards have to be involved in?

well...yeah that's one solution but then the SH solution is that forwards mimic backs and cut some flair space for themselves.

It's a balance I suppose but ...we want the same thing Glas, but I believe flair is what happens when a system is effective not simply players always just trying individual moments in isolation. If everyone is onboard in an effective attacking platform then confidence to exceed the plan then becomes more frequent. A conservative gameplan and individuals looking to try things alone and isolated from help can be disasterous.

Oh well, just opinions.

Aye.

How about that maybe its a myth about flair in the past. Lots of games in the past were turgid affairs with breaks resulting from poor defence vs so called flair. That so called flair may well only result in a tackle being made now days.
There's a very interesting chapter in Life's Granduer ( I think) by Stephen J Gould about variation and the spread of life. I think it could be applied here as well. But that would require finding the right book, then chapter, then rereading it and then writing the analysis then thinking about the analysis then giving up on it as being to hard. So I'll skip straight to the last step and get back to work.

Myth? No, it's not a myth. It was like test cricket, you had to pan through a lot of gravel to find the odd nugget of gold. Now it's moving towards the NFL end of the spectrum. I thought you'd get ying and yang Ngan?

Glas a du wrote:Laurie, don't you think it's boring to see 'painting by numbers' moves pulled off due to hours of brain numbingly repetitive training? Moves calculated to mask blatant obstruction? OK it takes a certain organisational flair, but so does mass calisthenics. Defences are a lot better than they used to be but Payne just was struck by a moment of inspiration and he pulled it off. The sad thing is that if he had fumbled it a real strip would have been torn off him for wasting a good field position. I ask you!

No, I dont find it boring, but I also think you are short changing what goes into these moves to make them work at high levels of the game, and at pace. You can also have the flair that you talk about of the individual, but their is also flair by a combination of players and that comes from a lot of hard work on the training field.

I get that, but its like new world wine verses something a French peasant manages to knock out once in a blue moon. Scientically produced New Zealand wine is great, consistent, reliable. It's just the good old French stuff whips it on...charisma.

Too be honest dont drink much French, get plenty of practise on Australian reds though, and those Aussie winemakers have to do a lot of repetitive training to keep up with demand.

Australian redheads are too likely to be Irish.

Ned Kelly's sister?

Glas a du wrote:Myth? No, it's not a myth. It was like test cricket, you had to pan through a lot of gravel to find the odd nugget of gold. Now it's moving towards the NFL end of the spectrum. I thought you'd get ying and yang Ngan?

Yes exactly that's what I mean about the myth.
I'm suggesting that the flair content in games over the years has been about the same. There was flair then and there is flair now. A lot of flair now is however beaten by good defence so that it doesn't look like flair anymore.

Jared Payne does a little chip over the top for Ulster - it comes off - so you call it flair.
Someone else does a chip over the top for the Chiefs (NZ) - it gets covered by Conrad Smith ( an excellent centre who spotted the risk) - so its not called flair. Same action but different result.

Could not agree more. I have really been thinking about how boring it is watching rugby. I was watching Glasgow last weekend and although I love them it was so very tedious to watch. There are very few exciting games anymore where something out of the ordinary happens.

Is it really 7 years since Wales exilerating grand slam that was so against the odds? Yes we have won two since then but they were dull.

For me, Scarlets are a beacon in these dark days of crash it up, spin it wide, kick it high rugby. Last season Harlequins were fantastic to watch and they came away winners. will other teams follow? Unlikely as the risks are too high.

Rugby has become too pragmatic to dream of what might be instead of having nightmares of what might be.

I watch live rugby at WRU Championship, Division 1 and Youth level ( I have 3 sons playing) and honestly I see some cracking games of rugby. Teams are generally well coached, they play structured rugby to a point usually upto maybe the 3rd ior 4th phase ( less at Youth level)

Do I see flair - Yes in every game there is a flash of something special.

The moral of the story is - the top level is not necessarily the best to spectate - thank God for Grass Roots.

Its what Brian Ashton was always on about in his columns in the Independent. He was always complaining about over coached players and the need for players to take responsibility and play what is infront of them

There was an article in The Rugby Paper on the weekend which featured Dean Ryan. It ststed that the average tenure of a professional rugby coach is approximately 22 months.

They have to be seen to be earning their money consequently "they coach".

jeff stones dad wrote:I watch live rugby at WRU Championship, Division 1 and Youth level ( I have 3 sons playing) and honestly I see some cracking games of rugby. Teams are generally well coached, they play structured rugby to a point usually upto maybe the 3rd ior 4th phase ( less at Youth level)

Do I see flair - Yes in every game there is a flash of something special.

The moral of the story is - the top level is not necessarily the best to spectate - thank God for Grass Roots.

Agree with this as well. My local side Market Harborough are playing some very watchable rugby. Two weeks ago they played Northampton Old Scouts and the score finished 37-25. It was a great game and some of the tries scored would have graced any tier one competition. It's a shame the top tier don't play with the same ambition. winning is better than not losing

There's too much at stake!

Interesting piece Glas a du.

I think if you look at the French team who wrongly or rightly get associated with the word flair, they certainly don't seem to have played with flair against a top side in recent times. They can conjure up the scintillating backline play against the weaker sides but when it comes to the big matches they thrive on defence and expect Dusatoir et al to tackle their way to victory. Is that because the top teams don't allow them to play that way or is it because they daren't try?

Your descriptions of the ABs teams of 1987 and 2011 are interesting. You could go in between as well and look at the 95 where we had our best other RWC team. Is there a clear evolution in style? Back in 95 we had Lomu and 87 we had Kirwan on the team. I think Corey Jane doesn't quite stack up against them in the physicality stakes. Nor does Conrad Smith against Smoking Joe or Frank Bunce. Aaron Smith this year is hardly a bruiser. I don't think there's much of a physical comparison between the sides, and Laurie Mains in 95 was obsessed with fitness. I don't think you can say they weren't well drilled in 87 either.

I think you can go back and find great running rugby but you can also find a lot of dross. You talk about repeating things from the training field but you make it sound as though that's an easy task. Pulling off a set move is a thing of beauty in my opinion because how often do you pull off what you do in training.

When you look at the AB tries in Soweto the first came from a counter attack. Two thirty metre passes and the ball was on the other side of the park. Something no doubt you train for. But then Gear busted through a tackle and got the offload away and soft hands saw the towering Whitelock running for the line. Not so much planned for. Similarly the second try came from broken play and Gear switching up the angle and good support play. Looks easy but it's awareness of what's going on around you and though John Kirwan's try against Italy or Jonah Lomu's 95 try against England weren't from the textbook, neither was Corey Jane's last try against Argentina the week before. Ok, I'm not suggesting it ranks alongside the two aformentioned tries but it was individual brilliance that came from something instinctual rather than something programmed.

So I get your point because for much of this RC I was not enamoured with the rugby. But much like your OP title, maybe you have to be patient waiting for the moments of gems. Looking back on what happened before we have the luxury of automatically going straight for the gold. There's an awful lot of sand to sift through before though.

Just watch the Hurricanes play. Yeehaa!

So all in all Kia, your not sure about the black and white portrayal of the All Blacks vintages, you like to see bit of flair but think I'm overly dismissive of the good bits in modern rugby. You know, I can live with that.

That's a fair description.

I just think sometimes when we look back with nostalgia on previous eras we tend to focus on the good aspects. Like rucking or no lifting in the lineouts. Ah those were the days. Not this league / basketball nonsense. When I walked to school, it was in the driving snow. Now these spoiled little brats get dropped off in 4WDs.

Things change. But it's not always a linear line. We can't have perfection but every once in a while we come pretty close. In any era. Some teams more than others but we all have our moments.

One day the IRB will wake up and say: "We know, the answer is fewer laws better enforced" and some coaches will think "perhaps the edge can be gained by disciplined defence and instinctive attack" and we will enter a new golden age.

It wouldn't be do bad if they enforced the law we have now. Feeding, crooked throws, accidental offside, driving before the ball is in, driving straight, staying bound. All of these things if enforced would open up more attacking options but referees don't seem interested these days

McKay.

If referees were to enforce every law as per the law book then they would be accused of having no empathy with the game.

Damned if you do damned if you dont.