Re: When we go to eight interchanges as well... : Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:26 pm  

Levrier wrote:

Genuinely sorry that Greenwood never really got a run. When I saw him play he did not look out of place, although that is not saying much.
In relation to your point about our props looking knackered, I always thought it was part of Wanes master plan to lull the opposition into a false sense of security. Perhaps it is because Bit con has been moved upstairs.

I'm adamant we're getting preseason wrong as far as our fitness levels are concerned. We've been to Florida for the past 3 preseasons and struggled to find any form early on. Maguire's preseasons were always described as the toughest any player had ever experienced, the training camps up in Scotland with the army etc. All I ever read about Florida is how "the lads have bonded and worked on their skill"

Re: New Subs Rule ?. : Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:01 am  

ChrisA wrote:

We used to play with 2 subs and 4 interchanges, games weren't error strewn, the way it is now has driven out an Andy Gregory or a Martin Dermot, clever players who relied on skill, not speed and power. There are no individuals now, just teams of guys who all look and play the same. Removing the skill which is what has happened with the 10 metre rule and 10 interchanges has forced the game into a possession and territory based game, skill has become second fiddle.

Spot on.

Re: When we go to eight interchanges as well... : Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:38 pm  

Seems to me the 10 m rule was brought in with the best of intentions to assist attacking play. It is at least arguably the case now that it's turned out to benefit defence more than attack.

But surely the moral here is that major rule changes often have unintended consequences? Shouldn't that be a warning to those who advocate sweeping rule changes to solve the sport's perceived woes?

The trouble is that as fans, we often have contradictory aims. We want to encourage attacking play and individual skill, but at the same time we complain the game is getting 'soft', we want to "bring back the biff", etc etc.

Re: When we go to eight interchanges as well... : Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:35 am  

I'm not sure this emphasises skill over size. Some very skilful big players out there that this will impact and to me or will be less a case of skill over size than stamina over everything.

Anyone who was at Warrington for the Nz Samoa game will probably say the game would bet less fun without people like Masoe.

We have packs full of back rowers playing long minutes, sounds boring to me.

Re: New Subs Rule ?. : Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:32 am  

CyberPieMan wrote: But aren't you then risking games with error strewn final 20 minutes, which can only be magnified towards the end of a season? Also, won't conditioning end up biased for stamina & not strength? At the extreme, you'd end up with nothing much more than touch-rugby. I'm sorry, but I don't see this as anything more than another step in the sanitisation of the game. It's in response to the increased dominance of defence in the game basically. In 2014, there were 8 linebreaks a game compared to 10.1 in 2004. Tries have dropped from 8.4 to 7.3. Offloads from 24 to 17.7. The number of three man tackles per game has almost doubled, now making up 35% of all tackles, and consequently, quick PTBs have gone from 22% of tackles in 2004 to 14% in 2014. It isn't so much what the game is like NOW that has prompted the change. It's what the game might be like in 10 years time, where the average prop is predicted to be 8kg heavier than in 2004, the average lock to be 12kg heavier than in 2004, and the average fullback 12kg heavier than 2004. There's also the theory that this should decrease the amount of wrestle in our game, as teams will save their energy by not getting as many numbers into tackles. However, I'm not sure I agree with this - getting numbers into tackles slows the PTB down which saves you energy - so unsure if this will change. All my stats are from here: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 211c0.html

CyberPieMan wrote: But aren't you then risking games with error strewn final 20 minutes, which can only be magnified towards the end of a season? Also, won't conditioning end up biased for stamina & not strength? At the extreme, you'd end up with nothing much more than touch-rugby. I'm sorry, but I don't see this as anything more than another step in the sanitisation of the game. It's in response to the increased dominance of defence in the game basically. In 2014, there were 8 linebreaks a game compared to 10.1 in 2004. Tries have dropped from 8.4 to 7.3. Offloads from 24 to 17.7. The number of three man tackles per game has almost doubled, now making up 35% of all tackles, and consequently, quick PTBs have gone from 22% of tackles in 2004 to 14% in 2014. It isn't so much what the game is like NOW that has prompted the change. It's what the game might be like in 10 years time, where the average prop is predicted to be 8kg heavier than in 2004, the average lock to be 12kg heavier than in 2004, and the average fullback 12kg heavier than 2004. There's also the theory that this should decrease the amount of wrestle in our game, as teams will save their energy by not getting as many numbers into tackles. However, I'm not sure I agree with this - getting numbers into tackles slows the PTB down which saves you energy - so unsure if this will change. All my stats are from here: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 211c0.html

Re: New Subs Rule ?. : Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:31 am  

Saint #1 wrote: It's in response to the increased dominance of defence in the game basically. In 2014, there were 8 linebreaks a game compared to 10.1 in 2004. Tries have dropped from 8.4 to 7.3. Offloads from 24 to 17.7. The number of three man tackles per game has almost doubled, now making up 35% of all tackles, and consequently, quick PTBs have gone from 22% of tackles in 2004 to 14% in 2014. It isn't so much what the game is like NOW that has prompted the change. It's what the game might be like in 10 years time, where the average prop is predicted to be 8kg heavier than in 2004, the average lock to be 12kg heavier than in 2004, and the average fullback 12kg heavier than 2004. There's also the theory that this should decrease the amount of wrestle in our game, as teams will save their energy by not getting as many numbers into tackles. However, I'm not sure I agree with this - getting numbers into tackles slows the PTB down which saves you energy - so unsure if this will change. All my stats are from here: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 211c0.html Too many numbers for a Friday morning - I'm only on my 2nd cup of coffee

Saint #1 wrote: It's in response to the increased dominance of defence in the game basically. In 2014, there were 8 linebreaks a game compared to 10.1 in 2004. Tries have dropped from 8.4 to 7.3. Offloads from 24 to 17.7. The number of three man tackles per game has almost doubled, now making up 35% of all tackles, and consequently, quick PTBs have gone from 22% of tackles in 2004 to 14% in 2014. It isn't so much what the game is like NOW that has prompted the change. It's what the game might be like in 10 years time, where the average prop is predicted to be 8kg heavier than in 2004, the average lock to be 12kg heavier than in 2004, and the average fullback 12kg heavier than 2004. There's also the theory that this should decrease the amount of wrestle in our game, as teams will save their energy by not getting as many numbers into tackles. However, I'm not sure I agree with this - getting numbers into tackles slows the PTB down which saves you energy - so unsure if this will change. All my stats are from here: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 211c0.html Too many numbers for a Friday morning - I'm only on my 2nd cup of coffee

Re: New Subs Rule ?. : Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:10 am  

CyberPieMan wrote:

Too many numbers for a Friday morning - I'm only on my 2nd cup of coffee

The link has pictures

[DaveO]

Re: New Subs Rule ?. : Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:18 am  

ChrisA wrote:

We used to play with 2 subs and 4 interchanges, games weren't error strewn, the way it is now has driven out an Andy Gregory or a Martin Dermot, clever players who relied on skill, not speed and power. There are no individuals now, just teams of guys who all look and play the same. Removing the skill which is what has happened with the 10 metre rule and 10 interchanges has forced the game into a possession and territory based game, skill has become second fiddle.

The 10 metre rule is the biggest skill reducing rule IMO. I don't think there is a halfback or hooker in the league who'd have a clue what to do against a defence as in their face as they used to be.

As to the subs rule we will never go back to 2 subs and 4 interchanges simply because of health and safety. Telling a player to carry on and go and stand on the wing when injured as John Monie would if he'd run out of subs isn't realistic these days.

Re: New Subs Rule ?. : Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:38 pm  

CyberPieMan wrote:

"fewer fresher players on the field at any one time" just completely counter-intuitive to me. How does this improve the game?

And how does it 'protect' players from injury? because a tired player is more likely to get something wrong in a tackle and get injured through fatigue affecting decision making or effort in a tackle.

This one baffles me.

Re: When we go to eight interchanges as well... : Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:03 pm  

Does rugby really need 19 stone plus guys the size of Mose Masoe (for example)?

Honestly, I don't think it does. And if this move discourages them, then so much the better.