Is not losing all that matters?

First topic message reminder :

It has been evident that this 6Nations has been blighted as a spectacle by teams trying not to lose rather than trying to win.
Fans are shelling out big bucks for tickets and are being short changed.Professional Sport has a duty to entertain in my mind and a combination of poor refereeing and negative tactics have produced one of the dullest 6N's ever.
When a Welsh CENTRE admits that he needs to work on his passing skills I despair for our game.They seem to be picked for their tackling and if they can pass a ball it is a bonus.
Throwing the ball around is considered suicidal and must only be employed as a last resort.Better to hoof the ball and hope that the other side make a howler or a charge down of their return kick might lead to something.
Watching the under 20's is much more like it.
I may be being contentious but I blame the Rugby League ethos that has pervaded our game since the Edwards and Farrells have held sway.Not losing Rugby has even stilted French flair.
It is no coincidence that the team with the least to lose has played the most watchable Rugby.

Sorry to be so gloomy but I can remember the days when I was uplifted by the skillset of my heroes.

sirtidychris wrote:The Southern Hemisphere play their rugby in the summer (in a better climate), we play our rugby in the winter (in a shoddy climate).

No, we also play in winter. It does rain and get cold down south but point taken - you do experience much more severe winter weather in the NH. (although it can get quite miserable; especially in the S.I. of NZ but the pitches hold up quite well these days)

Linebreaker wrote:

sirtidychris wrote:The Southern Hemisphere play their rugby in the summer (in a better climate), we play our rugby in the winter (in a shoddy climate).

No, we also play in winter. It does rain and get cold down south but point taken - you do experience much more severe winter weather in the NH. (although it can get quite miserable; especially in the S.I. of NZ but the pitches hold up quite well these days)

To be honest the whole SH play in the summer really bugs me, as you say you play in the winter, also rugby is a winter game. Hard ground is not exactly idea for player wealthfare.

Don't think many people are thinking about risk management!!!

You don't attack in channells that prove difficult to defend if mistakes happen, for the last few years tries were being scored from turnover ball on a massive rate, so in order to counter these silly tries teams don't go wide without good cause to.

Is reigning back your attacking players for the sake of a defencive effort minimising your attack, or maximising your defence?

After all points are still being scored in as high a numbers, it's just that this year teams are looking to strangle and kick over the points rather than run the risk of turnover tries.

IMHO the pacific Islanders have a clear focus on attack, they use a natural ability to break defences and then athleticism to support, in the NH this year we've seen a complete shift where any attack is based on keeping it risk free, narrow so that when mistakes happen a defencive pattern is already in place.

The SH generally have a mixture of the 2, and for me the reason they win more often than not.

Coaches, especially at times when building a squad almost from scratch or re-invigorating one with new caps, are torn between the need to try new players and combinations and the fans and powers that be demands to win. It is no surprise then that defence is seen as the 1st priority and the 'not losing' mentality takes over. Only once they have vreated that base do they start to seriously concentrate on attack. NH sides are not generally known for their attacking flair and it is often only the young players who inject that (watch age group games) and then mostly at the beginning of their international career. We see it slowly but surely get coached out of them rather than it being developed and built on. Oz have flair in droves sometimes to the exclusion of other aspects which is why they are always a threat but always a terget for NH sides. Club sides don't seem to follow this trend as much with great tries being scored and crowds being entertained but few club coaches elevated to national coaches manage to avoid being sucked in after a short while. I have been amazed by the achievements of SL's team but after just over a year it is still short of an effective attacking strategy and if he is not careful he will miss the opportunity to take advantage of the honeymoon period to go for it without criticism and the pressure 'not to lose' will have taken over. He would have been forgiven readily if he had gone for attack but lost the odd game, instead he now has expectation of not losing on his back.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

in the NH this year we've seen a complete shift where any attack is based on keeping it risk free, narrow so that when mistakes happen a defencive pattern is already in place.

If two teams play that way, it's certainly a risk for one of them as most games have a winner. Maybe Ireland/France did cancel each other out in that regard but it's rare that both sides are equally good (or useless!) in attack and defence.

Plus... defending is a tougher sport - physically and mentally. O'Driscoll himself said as much last year when he said he found attacking platforms much easier on brain, and obviously physically, than the slog of defending. So the spirit of attack minded players getting dragged into excessive defending can be a drain on their naturally high adrenaline levels that might be better suited to the game they enjoy.

Defending is doable for most players when drilled correctly and they have the body contour and conditioning to be useful at it for long stretches. But some players are simply designed - by nature - to die a little in those kind of games and then to find it difficult enough to come alive again when games open up attack-wise.

It's a bloody infuriatingly complex subject in short!!!!

Taffineastbourne wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Welcome to the Professional Era

But that is just my point.
Rugby is part of the Entertainment Business and there is a duty/obligation to entertain people.
Scottish fans have had the right idea and the empty seats that have been evident at Murrayfield over the years should be an evident protest that the "product" isn't up to scratch.
As long as Twickers,Aviva and MS keep selling out and the TV companies keep subsisting the Unions we will continue to get this crap Rugby.
I plead with all Unions to become more professional and give us some entertainment

I disagree, rugby is in the rugby business. If people want guaranteed entertainment then go to the west end and watch the Lion King. I do not see how there is a duty to be entertained. Rugby is about winning. If Ireland lose I will not be entertained but provided the players have paid due respect to their jersey I will have got my money's worth.

I'm not a fan of the modern day trimmings that are served up to keep casual fans entertained. Annoying PAs, cheerleaders, half time shows. Mind you fireworks and flames are kinda cool.

I will make an exception for the Sharks cheerleaders too.

You are a man of principle

Thank feck he hasn't seen Banwen RFC's cheer leaders

SecretFly wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

in the NH this year we've seen a complete shift where any attack is based on keeping it risk free, narrow so that when mistakes happen a defencive pattern is already in place.

If two teams play that way, it's certainly a risk for one of them as most games have a winner. Maybe Ireland/France did cancel each other out in that regard but it's rare that both sides are equally good (or useless!) in attack and defence.

Plus... defending is a tougher sport - physically and mentally. O'Driscoll himself said as much last year when he said he found attacking platforms much easier on brain, and obviously physically, than the slog of defending. So the spirit of attack minded players getting dragged into excessive defending can be a drain on their naturally high adrenaline levels that might be better suited to the game they enjoy.

Defending is doable for most players when drilled correctly and they have the body contour and conditioning to be useful at it for long stretches. But some players are simply designed - by nature - to die a little in those kind of games and then to find it difficult enough to come alive again when games open up attack-wise.

It's a bloody infuriatingly complex subject in short!!!!

But defence starts with ball in hand, by running safer lines, narrower channells and playing less risky passes you keep ball for longer, and the longer you keep ball the less defending you have to do.

Wales try not to pass 2/3 times in one move, it's risky as the ball is far likelier to be dropped or turned over, so they play the one pass to the pod/ball carrier, even when going nowhere they are forcing the opposition to defend, and avoiding the slog of defence (that make sense)

It's all well and good saying attackings easier, but the more you try to attack the quicker you lose the ball and have to defend!!!

And as a player and coach I think the tackle situation isn't what tires the defence, I firmly beleive it's the anticipation, the constant thought processes and the blitz/reload teams play these days.

It has become so important to be agressive both with line speed and at the breakdown the bulk of mental and physical work is done while defending.

I know this has been recognised and is the case with a few pro clubs, and the thought process is that the narrow players making huge numbers of tackles tire quickly, especially as the likes of Wales and England pound it up the middle constantly, and the wider players get frustrated.

I don't think pro rugby puts anywhere near the right amount of focus on the thought process's involved with international rugby, especially when wings can be so uninvolved for long periods, and certain forwards are over involved for such long periods.

RubyGuby wrote:Thank feck he hasn't seen Banwen RFC's cheer leaders

send us a picture please

thebluesmancometh wrote:

It's all well and good saying attackings easier, but the more you try to attack the quicker you lose the ball and have to defend!!!

Only if you don't trust the true vision of your attack coach, trust the true ability of your mates to engage in it, trust your own skills to keep up. Only if you don't truly (despite the public statements) trust your attacking ability do you have to keep your cards more guarded and protect your scoreline by constantly shifting back to defensive postures. If you're totally prepared to defend you are not totally prepared to attack. One is always stealing from the other. The idea of balance is a falacy in a sense as doing both equally, or trying to, is a blueprint for stealing energy from one to give to another.

Attacking possession is defending too...which kinda always gets overlooked on these pages. A game is 80 minutes, energy is finite.... if you hold possession and even go through attacking motions (without a true hammerblow ability) you are in actual fact defending. As a team can only attack back when in possession themselves. Control the clock, control the 80 minutes - Attacking has both attacking AND defensive capabilities. Purely defensive patterns (playing without the ball) can't really say that with such authority.

Attacking creates elation and defending, as you say, creates frustration. Elation produces adrenalin, adrenalin helps curb fatigue. That's what O'Driscoll means. Defending is tiring because it frustrates and contains attack minded players.

But again...it's complex isn't it. No real clear yes and no answers to any of it.

SecretFly wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

It's all well and good saying attackings easier, but the more you try to attack the quicker you lose the ball and have to defend!!!

Only if you don't trust the true vision of your attack coach, trust the true ability of your mates to engage in it, trust your own skills to keep up. Only if you don't truly (despite the public statements) trust your attacking ability do you have to keep your cards more guarded and protect your scoreline by constantly shifting back to defensive postures. If you're totally prepared to defend you are not totally prepared to attack. One is always stealing from the other. The idea of balance is a falacy in a sense as doing both equally, or trying to, is a blueprint for stealing energy from one to give to another.

Attacking possession is defending too...which kinda always gets overlooked on these pages. A game is 80 minutes, energy is finite.... if you hold possession and even go through attacking motions (without a true hammerblow ability) you are in actual fact defending. As a team can only attack back when in possession themselves. Control the clock, control the 80 minutes - Attacking has both attacking AND defensive capabilities. Purely defensive patterns (playing without the ball) can't really say that with such authority.

Attacking creates elation and defending, as you say, creates frustration. Elation produces adrenalin, adrenalin helps curb fatigue. That's what O'Driscoll means. Defending is tiring because it frustrates and contains attack minded players.

But again...it's complex isn't it. No real clear yes and no answers to any of it.

Well I generally coach my team to attack without the ball, IMHO and what seems like a lot of int coashes opinions too is that the game can be controled with or without the ball, when you have the ball you play offensively or defencively (what Wales and England are doing now) and without the ball you defend offensively (which Wales and England are doing now)or defencively. You can control the tempo of the game, territory and even posession.

The two styles of play on offer at the minute though are very negative, and both teams are succesfully dictating terms (to differing degrees) this will undoubtedly create a turgid slugfest at the MS on saturday. One of the teams needs to think about breaking the mould and trying something new, Wales are odds on favourite to do so as they need the 7 point win, so England will do what theyve been doing, taking no risks whatsoever and living off opposition mistakes. It's up to Wales to find a solution!

thebluesmancometh wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

It's all well and good saying attackings easier, but the more you try to attack the quicker you lose the ball and have to defend!!!

Only if you don't trust the true vision of your attack coach, trust the true ability of your mates to engage in it, trust your own skills to keep up. Only if you don't truly (despite the public statements) trust your attacking ability do you have to keep your cards more guarded and protect your scoreline by constantly shifting back to defensive postures. If you're totally prepared to defend you are not totally prepared to attack. One is always stealing from the other. The idea of balance is a falacy in a sense as doing both equally, or trying to, is a blueprint for stealing energy from one to give to another.

Attacking possession is defending too...which kinda always gets overlooked on these pages. A game is 80 minutes, energy is finite.... if you hold possession and even go through attacking motions (without a true hammerblow ability) you are in actual fact defending. As a team can only attack back when in possession themselves. Control the clock, control the 80 minutes - Attacking has both attacking AND defensive capabilities. Purely defensive patterns (playing without the ball) can't really say that with such authority.

Attacking creates elation and defending, as you say, creates frustration. Elation produces adrenalin, adrenalin helps curb fatigue. That's what O'Driscoll means. Defending is tiring because it frustrates and contains attack minded players.

But again...it's complex isn't it. No real clear yes and no answers to any of it.

Well I generally coach my team to attack without the ball, IMHO and what seems like a lot of int coashes opinions too is that the game can be controled with or without the ball, when you have the ball you play offensively or defencively (what Wales and England are doing now) and without the ball you defend offensively (which Wales and England are doing now)or defencively. You can control the tempo of the game, territory and even posession.

The two styles of play on offer at the minute though are very negative, and both teams are succesfully dictating terms (to differing degrees) this will undoubtedly create a turgid slugfest at the MS on saturday. One of the teams needs to think about breaking the mould and trying something new, Wales are odds on favourite to do so as they need the 7 point win, so England will do what theyve been doing, taking no risks whatsoever and living off opposition mistakes. It's up to Wales to find a solution!

That's coach... you 'coach' a brand. I'm talking players. And as players have to be to a certain extent 'yes' men to their coaches well, the policies of any coach gets 'yes'. Coaches want to win games...players want reputations - especially backs who have the personalities to suit their abilities. They like speed, they like creating space, they like scoring and they like reputations. Wales and England are excelling at something...but I'd put a lot of that down to Ireland and France excelling at nothing.

The Six Nations is concentrating on the combination of careful defence minded attacking (as you said) because it is making headway in a pretty dreadful year of effort from most 6N sides. Scotland didn't play against Ireland and yet won - (which tells the story of both sides!) France are at the bottom with perhaps the best natural players. That France, Ireland and even Scotland to an extent are suffering is down to much more than systems adopted by England and Wales.

especially backs who have the personalities to suit their abilities. They like speed, they like creating space, they like scoring and they like reputations.

They do in a perfect world, but thats not whats winning games, and the teams/players who do this V England have given England easy shots at goal etc...

More than anything players want to win, do you think Ashton will be that sad with a GS medal on saturday after having what can be described at best as a third stinker in a row?? Will he Frak!

thebluesmancometh wrote:especially backs who have the personalities to suit their abilities. They like speed, they like creating space, they like scoring and they like reputations.

They do in a perfect world, but thats not whats winning games, and the teams/players who do this V England have given England easy shots at goal etc...

More than anything players want to win, do you think Ashton will be that sad with a GS medal on saturday after having what can be described at best as a third stinker in a row?? Will he Frak!

You're talking winning games...I'm talking a greatly experienced old head International/Lions player saying too much concentration on defending is tiring (ie, it interferes with the whole concept of winning - stamina and alertness) on the mind and spirit of players who are designed more readily to exploit attack.

If certain sides know how to contain (defend) more than (attack) so be it if it achieves success. It fatigues players who would prefer to attack. Fatigued players kinda lose effectiveness in defence if they are not given enough opportunity (in gameplan) to attack.

In order to defend carefully you have to keep patterns, you can't let players over-extend..therefore the defence itself impedes the whole concept of attack. Wales only came back at Ireland by an all out blitz effort of no subtlety - they simply went for it - all out attack. Ireland fell away in trying to contain the attack, and feeling confident in their structures that they would. They very nearly didn't and they were much the more tired and downhearted coming off the field. The Welsh were energised - and the Welsh fed off that attack energy to get back into winning form.

Call the cautious attack balance if you will - even call it a winning formula. I'll call it a plan that can unravel - like all of them actually. Just ask Ireland - they've been found out trying to effect the very same plan for years now - steal points then retreat to defend them - long before England and Wales 'perfected' the plan It's Ireland's retreat to defend points, it's Ireland giving possession to attacking sides that is killing them over and over and over again.

But we'll see.... two winning teams with the same 'plan' clash next week. Which one wins? - I predict the one that wins will still be the one losing to New Zealand next time.

GunsGerms wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Welcome to the Professional Era

But that is just my point.
Rugby is part of the Entertainment Business and there is a duty/obligation to entertain people.
Scottish fans have had the right idea and the empty seats that have been evident at Murrayfield over the years should be an evident protest that the "product" isn't up to scratch.
As long as Twickers,Aviva and MS keep selling out and the TV companies keep subsisting the Unions we will continue to get this crap Rugby.
I plead with all Unions to become more professional and give us some entertainment

I disagree, rugby is in the rugby business. If people want guaranteed entertainment then go to the west end and watch the Lion King. I do not see how there is a duty to be entertained. Rugby is about winning. If Ireland lose I will not be entertained but provided the players have paid due respect to their jersey I will have got my money's worth.

I'm not a fan of the modern day trimmings that are served up to keep casual fans entertained. Annoying PAs, cheerleaders, half time shows. Mind you fireworks and flames are kinda cool.

I will make an exception for the Sharks cheerleaders too.

You are entitled to your opinion even though misguided
I have been into Rugby for over fifty years and find myself pottering around the house when the Internationals are on.Not so long ago aliens might have landed in my back garden and I would have been too engrossed to notice.How can we attract new fans/players when our product is dull.
The rugby business is in direct competition with all manner of sports and leisure avenues.Little Britain mentality could inflict a fatal wound to our game.
Wake up and smell the coffee

thebluesmancometh wrote:The two styles of play on offer at the minute though are very negative, and both teams are succesfully dictating terms (to differing degrees) this will undoubtedly create a turgid slugfest at the MS on saturday. One of the teams needs to think about breaking the mould and trying something new, Wales are odds on favourite to do so as they need the 7 point win, so England will do what theyve been doing, taking no risks whatsoever and living off opposition mistakes. It's up to Wales to find a solution!

I agree the onus is on us to dictate the style of play, given that we are the home team. This is what I find a little annoying when people criticise Wales' performances in their wins, when in my opinion the onus was on France, Italy and Scotland to make a better spectacle of these games.

Taffineastbourne wrote:You are entitled to your opinion even though misguided
I have been into Rugby for over fifty years and find myself pottering around the house when the Internationals are on.Not so long ago aliens might have landed in my back garden and I would have been too engrossed to notice.How can we attract new fans/players when our product is dull.
The rugby business is in direct competition with all manner of sports and leisure avenues.Little Britain mentality could inflict a fatal wound to our game.
Wake up and smell the coffee

Why do you want to attract new fans? I dont see the need to change the game just to make it more palitable to the masses. It has survived and grown for over a century and doesnt appear to be in any danger of the same fate as your relative the dodo (just kidding). Why not just turn it into a big commercial bonanza and distroy rugby forever like christmas or American football where it bears very little resemblance at all to the sport we actually love.

Rugby is a sport not a side show. Lets not lose sight of that.

I like to get rid of a few new fans, if I'm being honest! The ones that needed a Campaign by Quinlan to try and get them to turn up at the beginning of a game...if they didn't mind awfully leaving the bloody pubs, that is.

And the ones who make a quick pre-game-ending exit too to be the first ones back at the bloody pubs. The pub never loses fans...great bloody team altogether