Wingers - Finishers vs All round abilities

Would interesting to get your thoughts on this before I give my obvious stance on this.

Both - people tend to focus too much on the try scoring ratios though - I wouldn't pick a winger who couldn't defend or catch a high ball no matter how many tries they scored, that said if they can't finish chances they aren't much use either.

Rodders the question is - is it important that a winger scores tries? That's a simple yes or no. I see your point - hence the debate.

E.g. for example at the moment on the BBC website Anthony Watson is being hyped up by Guscott. He's just a 20 year old with potential - his try scoring record is only 1 in 11 matches at AP level. I worry that if he can't make a big enough impact on the try scoring stakes at club level he will struggle more so at the higher level of international rugby.

Hmm I don't know anything about said player but the point stands - the main thing, rather than ratio of tries is whether a player can put a chance away - at International level chances usually aren't as forthcoming.

I think of guys like Bowe or Ashton, in big games they'll score tries - it doesn't matter how many they score week in week out at club level.

beshocked, you said the same thing about Marland Yarde at the start of the season as well though, as his strike ratio last season was not great.

Watson is a talent, who has been playing primarily at full back in Bath team that have not been unleashing their backline.

All stats can be misleading, including tries scored, and if a winger has a good all round skillset and is creating tries for others then it matters little who actually dots down over the white line.

Cuthbert is a finisher - not an awful lot else.

North has pretty much got it all

What I am trying to get my head around is if they don't score tries then what do they do?

They might cause problems for the opposition but if it doesn't create opportunities for their own team then surely it's unimportant? If a break from winger A wins a penalty then it's important but if winger A makes a break but then concedes a penalty or gets turned over surely it cancels the good stuff?


Perhaps it's because I look at rugby in a simplistic manner. I see the centres as the creators - the link between the half backs and the back three. The ones who create the space and opportunities - the holes, the chinks, half breaks etc.

I see the wingers as the finishers, the support men, the poachers.

It's like a striker in football - you want them to finish the opportunities that arise.

A winger's drought in tries isn't always down to them but then focus must go onto others.

E.g. with Bath's decent forward platform and supposedly decent backs why isn't Watson scoring more than 1 try in 11 games?

My point is if he can't score with that kind of platform what hope has he got for England?

He'll probably score against the Dragons now, thanks for that   

beshocked wrote:What I am trying to get my head around is if they don't score tries then what do they do?

They might cause problems for the opposition but if it doesn't create opportunities for their own team then surely it's unimportant? If a break from winger A wins a penalty then it's important but if winger A makes a break but then concedes a penalty or gets turned over surely it cancels the good stuff?


Perhaps it's because I look at rugby in a simplistic manner. I see the centres as the creators - the link between the half backs and the back three. The ones who create the space and opportunities - the holes, the chinks, half breaks etc.

I see the wingers as the finishers, the support men, the poachers.

It's like a striker in football - you want them to finish the opportunities that arise.

A winger's drought in tries isn't always down to them but then focus must go onto others.

E.g. with Bath's decent forward platform and supposedly decent backs why isn't Watson scoring more than 1 try in 11 games?

My point is if he can't score with that kind of platform what hope has he got for England?

Because in simplistic terms Bath rarely put it through the hands in the backs. Their pack dominate and Ford pings the corners. they then contest the lineout and rumble up in the forwards. If Watson was regularly being put into space with the ball and was fluffing the chances, then I could see your argument, but he's not. He regularly gets over the gainline through pace and good footwork and is part of his team providing a platform for scoring tries/points as a result.

Wales hammered England in the 6 nations because Cuthbert scored two tries down Brown's wing.

Cuthbert effectively finished off two decent backs moves. His impact was massive.

If Ashton was scoring lots of tries for England, his place would not be under pressure. For England he's been going through a relatively rough patch hence the struggle to retain his place.

Scoring tries is important for a winger in my opinion. Scotland are happy with Visser when he's on try scoring form for example.

Scoring for club and country is different but surely you would want the player with the higher strike rate as long as his defence is not so poor that it doesn't make up for it.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

beshocked wrote:What I am trying to get my head around is if they don't score tries then what do they do?

They might cause problems for the opposition but if it doesn't create opportunities for their own team then surely it's unimportant? If a break from winger A wins a penalty then it's important but if winger A makes a break but then concedes a penalty or gets turned over surely it cancels the good stuff?


Perhaps it's because I look at rugby in a simplistic manner. I see the centres as the creators - the link between the half backs and the back three. The ones who create the space and opportunities - the holes, the chinks, half breaks etc.

I see the wingers as the finishers, the support men, the poachers.

It's like a striker in football - you want them to finish the opportunities that arise.

A winger's drought in tries isn't always down to them but then focus must go onto others.

E.g. with Bath's decent forward platform and supposedly decent backs why isn't Watson scoring more than 1 try in 11 games?

My point is if he can't score with that kind of platform what hope has he got for England?

Because in simplistic terms Bath rarely put it through the hands in the backs.  Their pack dominate and Ford pings the corners.  they then contest the lineout and rumble up in the forwards.  If Watson was regularly being put into space with the ball and was fluffing the chances, then I could see your argument, but he's not.  He regularly gets over the gainline through pace and good footwork and is part of his team providing a platform for scoring tries/points as a result.

Surely you are describing England?

Watson is no Wade, no Yarde either (to be fair to Yarde he had a worse platform than Watson), I am trying to work out how Watson will make an important on the England score sheet if he can't for Bath.

As it stands the back three for England are ineffectual. Will Watson change this? I doubt it.

I'm not championing Watson beshocked, but you asked a question about wing play and wingers generally, and my view is that there is more to wing play than just scoring tries.

With regards to Watson I don't think he is ready to play for England, but that has nothing to do with his strike rate.

Looking at this in a very simplistic way, on one piece of evidence :

https://youtu.be/qDKXCJ0Es70

Who would you say deserves the credit for this try? I'm perfectly happy if Watson/Wade/May/Ashton do what Robinson did there and then give it to Dan Cole to belly flop over the line. Their lack of try scoring would not bother me one bit

I seem to remember many Wasps tries last season with Wade making the break and Varndell on his shoulder running them in. If Wade (or any other winger) didn't score a try all season but did that every game, would you think he is worthy of being in the England side

I think the role of the winger has moved on...however in my eyes they are still your strike runners...they're the try scorers and should still be so today.

However its not that black and white. Wingers are only as good as whats around them.  Ashton scores alot in the prem as sarries create chances for him and Strettle but under the current England plan they couldnt buy a try.

Someone like Marlon Yarde couldnt score last season but this season he has improved immeasureably in this area.....and him and Wade are players than can create things from nothing...

In the situation where your backs arent creating enough you maybe have to look at players who can do things for themselves...like Jason Robinson, or Shane Williams...

Personally i like two different wingers in my team...a creator or a monster and a finisher. But i like my Monster / Creator to be able to finish a chance aswell.

The question is....

Is Beshocked's method of rating a winger by how many tries they've scored a fair representation of how good they are?

I'm not trying to be a wind up, I really would be interested to hear how many agree. Personally, I don't, but I can see the logic in doing it to an extent

Should 'assists' not be included to the try total ?

For example, North hasn't scored oodles of tries for Saints but how many has he setup ? Wingers can suck in defenders for forwards etc to score

Bambam still a good finish by Greenwood to not go out. Was hardly a run in. If someone makes a break you still need someone there to finish off the move and get the crucial points on the board.

If Cole got himself in a position to be in support to one of those wingers he would be doing very well.

If Player A makes a break, you wish - if only Player B was there in support.....

Varndell got himself a position to feed off Wade's breaks. Very smart in my opinion.

The difference is that Wade does score himself.

Credit goes to both creator and finisher.

Support play is so important in scoring tries. Such an underrated skill. Being in the right place at the right time.

Ozzy3123 of course there is more to wing play than just scoring tries but scoring tries and finishing moves is hugely important.

Beshocked is asking this because currently Strettle and Ashton (high scorers in the league) are coming under huge criticism for their England spots. I can understand his way of thinking....surely you pick the best try scorers in the league for the national team.

On this thought, why wernt Varndell and Wade England wingers last year then? And Beshocked, would you have been happy with that situation?

I also think its not fair to say its only about try scoring though. There are some great wingers in the league who dont get half the chances that Ashton does for Sarries. Those players have to take what they can get...and generally have to create chances for themselves...something i think is becoming more important for the England winger ability under the current regime.

So...yes i agree with beschocked that its critical that Wingers take their chances...but i think try scoring stats dont show a clear picture either...

I thought Wade and Varndell weren't picked as they cant/wont tackle for poopie ?

International players (in my opinion) need to be able to do more than JUST score tries

Geordiefalcon interesting thing about Ashton he's also involved in a lot of the Sarries tries. I can think of at least 3 assists from Ashton this season.

Munkian I agree assists are important. Unfortunately we don't normally get to see that stat.

What would you interpret as an assist? Is it the last pass? Is it a break?

North has 3 tries in the AP. I would say his tries have had more of an impact than his assists - e.g. because of his tries Saints beat Quins and Leinster.

Bathite the thing is try scoring generally wins matches.

Really. I thought point scoring however they come wins matches. As highlighted when we outscored Gloucester 3 tries to 1 recently and still lost. Rugby is about more than just tries.

Yeah but scoring more tries is a moral victory   

The ideal thing is to have one of each.

Wales have   

In all fairness these days you need to have it all, even in the past. My preference is for a winger like Simon Goeghegan. Electric pace, unbelievable finisher, absolutely ferocious tackler (would happily tackle a bus), dazzling skill and undying will to win.

Thats a winger. I salute you SG, I salute you.

Ozzy we lost to NZ because they scored more tries. I agree rugby is more than just scoring tries but they go a long way to winning a match. Especially when you have two strong defences.

England last two losses to Wales have been down to be outscored in the try department.

Yes there are times when you score more tries and still lose but more often than not if you score more tries you win - plus get the crucial try bonuses.

North is an interesting one because he is not the most prolific try scorer but he generally scores in the biggest games which make his tries more valuable. E.g. on the Lions tour and the recent big matches vs Quins and Leinster.

With defences being much harder to break down, tries are not easy to get. That's why they are so valuable when they come.

Yeah North really is a first class winger. Actually he is more than just a winger. He has very deft touch, great awareness, composure and lots of other intangables.

A winger has to be a finisher imo, the biggest problem with Mike Brown on the wing for England is that he isn't a finisher, good player and a great asset to the team but he doesn't score tries out there.

beshocked wrote:Rodders the question is - is it important that a winger scores tries? That's a simple yes or no. I see your point - hence the debate.

E.g. for example at the moment on the BBC website Anthony Watson is being hyped up by Guscott. He's just a 20 year old with potential - his try scoring record is only 1 in 11 matches at AP level. I worry that if he can't make a big enough impact on the try scoring stakes at club level he will struggle more so at the higher level of international rugby.

Like Rodders states

Its important but depends on the team, system, tactics etc. I am sure the likes of Leicester on a club level, and Argentina/Scotland on an international level rely on forward tightknit pressure play, ball retention and recycling therefore they would look at a certain type of winger where its more important to a defensive winger, a team like the Scarlets who in recent time have had a poor pack but relied on fast backs play then I would have said the reverse is the case. I don't know much about Watson apart from he is instinctive very speedy with great balance, and more importantly is a world cup winner, and having being a member of an England team to beat the almost unbeatable "Baby Blacks". That's already a bloody good CV for anyone, let alone an exciting young winger.

What you don't know is.... is he like our Tim Visser or Wales Alex Cuthbert (albeit to a lesser extent) almost a revolving door when it comes to stopping tries.

The days of the wing hugging the touchline ready for "the off" are long gone, but we do need exciting players in the game generally and certainly with Lancaster's England.

Horses for courses, but I would say if he fits the jigsaw then you gotta give him a chance

To be honest up until this season I would have said that wingers are not just there to score, and that they need to have a good skill set, and ideally be able to fit into the centre of fullback if required. I always think of players like Gareth Thomas (former top welsh try scorer) and Daf James (former ERC top try scorer) as the sort of players I like to see on the wing. Back in the days of Shane Williams on one wing and Mark Jones on the other, ignoring my Scarlets bias, I always thought that Mark Jones actually did far more work, but Shane always ended up getting the right pass to score. In fairness Shane did change my opinion of him a bit nearing the end of his career mind.

But supporting the Scarlets this season where we have lost three talented wingers from last season (North, Fenby and Stoddart), and were we are now playing players who have more all round ability on the wing (Liam Williams, Jordan Williams), it is very obvious that a winger also needs that natural eye for the line and almost arrogance to know that they will make it to the line come hell or high water.

The cop out answer here is you want both.

Wingers should in theory score the most tries as they are more likely to be standing on the end of the backline and so can take advantage of any overlaps.

Personally I feel that being able to take chances when they come is far more important than having a higher total of tries to your name. Defence, kicking, safety under the high ball are all important in the modern game.

The top 3 premiership try scorers are Hanley, Cueto and Varndell. Only Cueto has more than a handful of caps and he didn't score many for England. So clearly try scoring isn't all the international selectors look for.

If this entire article is a Ashton vs Watson debate... Well Watson is a FB really so I'm not sure its a fair comparison, but I would say he has more flair about him, he is more likely to create something whereas Ashton has better positional awareness (and therefore scores more), but that can be learnt, whereas I'm not sure Ashton's sidestepping/ 1 on 1's is likely to get much better.

This isn't NFL, you don't get to separate offense from defense.

In rugby, like a lot of sport, the opposition will attack your weakness and exploit it.

I definitely think that a winger should be scoring tries.  But if a winger is scoring a 2 tries every 3 games but is woeful at defending, gives up territory, has no kicking game and is responsible for conceding 2 tries every 3 games then they add a net nil to the overall team.  In reality a winger is close to a striker (they are strike runners after all) so their ratio of tries to concessions should be to a higher bar.

So a great attacking winger (with average defense) is acceptable.
An average attacking winger (with average defense) is acceptable to a degree.
But a great attacking winger (with terrible defense) is a liability.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:To be honest up until this season I would have said that wingers are not just there to score, and that they need to have a good skill set, and ideally be able to fit into the centre of fullback if required.  I always think of players like Gareth Thomas (former top welsh try scorer) and Daf James (former ERC top try scorer) as the sort of players I like to see on the wing.  Back in the days of Shane Williams on one wing and Mark Jones on the other, ignoring my Scarlets bias, I always thought that Mark Jones actually did far more work, but Shane always ended up getting the right pass to score.  In fairness Shane did change my opinion of him a bit nearing the end of his career mind.

But supporting the Scarlets this season where we have lost three talented wingers from last season (North, Fenby and Stoddart), and were we are now playing players who have more all round ability on the wing (Liam Williams, Jordan Williams), it is very obvious that a winger also needs that natural eye for the line and almost arrogance to know that they will make it to the line come hell or high water.

Never understood why Scarlets sold Fenby, he can't have cost too much but was a great club player

Of course its important for wingers to score tries but the actual statistics are hugely dependent on what is happening inside them. A better figure might be 'chances converted' - if you could determine chances accurately enough. And you would want to look at how much work a player does. If Watson has only had one decent pass with some space in the last few matches and he has scored then that 1 in 11 might stack up better against a guy who has had 20 chances and put away 7 or 8.

Sometimes its best for a team to have one out and out try scorer and one guy who is better defensively and at making chances for the other.

Scarletspiderman you could argue that ickle Shane got himself in the right position to take the pass.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leading_rugby_union_test_try_scorers

Really interesting looking at strike rates.

Most of these guys on the list have a have strike rate of around 0.5 for wingers.

flyhalffactory You're right though. It does depend on the team and what they require at the time.

Campo at number 2 wasnt renowned for his defense nor was Williams. Still think the best wingers are those that have got it all though.

Williams improved his defense though. He'd at least try and tackle anyone in his prime - he stopped Banahan scoring from close range

Who are the most profilic wingers who aren't prolific try scorers?

munkian wrote:Williams improved his defense though. He'd at least try and tackle anyone in his prime - he stopped Banahan scoring from close range

by throwing himself under his legs!   

And Banahan didn't stop him from scoring... I spose Shane cheated by being 4 stone lighter and a foot shorter

munkian - depending on who you talk to Fenby told us what he wanted wages wise, and was never offered a contract, or Fenby wanted to more to the big smoke as he had just got engaged and was considering his post-rugby career. Either way he is sorely missed

'shocked - 'ickle Shane did get himself into the right places, but it did always seem to me that all the hard work was done by the other 14 men, and then he tended to just have to run straight to the line, or just catch the ball and pop it down.

munkian wrote:And Banahan didn't stop him from scoring... I spose Shane cheated by being 4 stone lighter  and a foot shorter

Maybe   

ScarletSpiderman wrote:munkian - depending on who you talk to Fenby told us what he wanted wages wise, and was never offered a contract, or Fenby wanted to more to the big smoke as he had just got engaged and was considering his post-rugby career.  Either way he is sorely missed

'shocked - 'ickle Shane did get himself into the right places, but it did always seem to me that all the hard work was done by the other 14 men, and then he tended to just have to run straight to the line, or just catch the ball and pop it down.

Fair enough SS - he was an accountant   

To be fair though, Shane did score some spectacular solo tries and put in some good defensive moves - remember him out jumping 2 French players on our try line to catch the ball ? And his try that left 5 Springboks grasping at air ?

I wouldn't have said that Lomu had a great all round game!
He is held as one of the finest wingers ever - But I don't really remember him for his kicking game!

propdavid_london wrote:I wouldn't have said that Lomu had a great all round game!
He is held as one of the finest wingers ever - But I don't really remember him for his kicking game!

True, he couldn't defend either. But once he got going no one could stop him

Was Caucau a totally rounded winger? (Yes maybe physically he was well rounded) He is held as potentially one of the greatest ever on natural ability?

If you have a player like, Lomu, or Caucau or currently Folau (his defensive abilities are being questioned) with attacking abilities like theirs then you have to have them in your team.

Hence from an English point of view, someone like Cristian Wade must be brought in as soon as hes fit back from injury...

propdavid_london wrote:I wouldn't have said that Lomu had a great all round game!
He is held as one of the finest wingers ever - But I don't really remember him for his kicking game!

Lomu was a freak though. Most players arent like that and thus need to have all round skills. A bit like Bowe, he isnt the fastest, strongest or biggest nor will he ever be. However, everything he can master through comittment, practice and effort he more or less has.

There is a definitely a case to be made for this distinction and if you're a Scotland fan, it comes into even sharper focus.

Young Timothy Jan Willem Visser has some of the worse defence I have ever seen in an international winger. His positioning sucks, he tunes out, he has been known to pop out of the defensive line and for a 16 stone, 6'4" man my toddler enjoys contact more. The flip side is that he's been the top scorer in the Rabo for 3 consecutive years and in his 12 caps for Scotland, he's scored 6 tries. Even the most one-eyed, crapulent, reality-avoider cannot help but accept it's an astonishing record as a marksman.

Let's compare that to, say, Sean Lamont. His Schlongness is a well rounded player - robust, brutally strong in defense, can play heads up rugby and I would argue is actually a better all round footballer than Visser (neither can kick, let's be honest). In his 82 caps for Scotland, he has somehow managed to glean 10 tries.

Who is the better winger? 10 out of 10 Scotland fans would say it's Visser.

The value of some wingers, however, is their ability to make chances either for themselves or a teammate which no other player on the field would be able to create. That's what Shane Williams did. To call him just a try scorer is to pay him a disservice - it was his vision, step and instinct for a break that caused his team to score so many during his era. It is brutally clear how much the Ospreys miss him (and Tommy Bowe) now.

I guess as a supporter you just want a winger who will scare the crap out of the opposition. As a manager you might be more interested in a player who will stop the other side scoring

Depends on how balanced your team is.

beshocked wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

beshocked wrote:What I am trying to get my head around is if they don't score tries then what do they do?

They might cause problems for the opposition but if it doesn't create opportunities for their own team then surely it's unimportant? If a break from winger A wins a penalty then it's important but if winger A makes a break but then concedes a penalty or gets turned over surely it cancels the good stuff?


Perhaps it's because I look at rugby in a simplistic manner. I see the centres as the creators - the link between the half backs and the back three. The ones who create the space and opportunities - the holes, the chinks, half breaks etc.

I see the wingers as the finishers, the support men, the poachers.

It's like a striker in football - you want them to finish the opportunities that arise.

A winger's drought in tries isn't always down to them but then focus must go onto others.

E.g. with Bath's decent forward platform and supposedly decent backs why isn't Watson scoring more than 1 try in 11 games?

My point is if he can't score with that kind of platform what hope has he got for England?

Because in simplistic terms Bath rarely put it through the hands in the backs.  Their pack dominate and Ford pings the corners.  they then contest the lineout and rumble up in the forwards.  If Watson was regularly being put into space with the ball and was fluffing the chances, then I could see your argument, but he's not.  He regularly gets over the gainline through pace and good footwork and is part of his team providing a platform for scoring tries/points as a result.

Surely you are describing England?

Watson is no Wade, no Yarde either (to be fair to Yarde he had a worse platform than Watson), I am trying to work out how Watson will make an important on the England score sheet if he can't for Bath.

As it stands the back three for England are ineffectual. Will Watson change this? I doubt it.

If what you state is true, you won't want to keep the status quo, so what's your suggested solution? (no axe)