Rugby league doesn’t seem to be developing – the game is static when it comes to change and innovative play.
The latest controversy is of course the shoulder charge debate, and now we have the discontent from a number of clubs towards the NRL itself and its CEO Dave Smith.
These things are a distraction to the real issues in the game.
League has quality athletic players that have some of the best skills going around. I can’t help but notice that these players’ skills are not often on show because league is only structured towards completion rates.
Completion rates are probably good indicators of ball retention and possession, which are both good things, however focusing on this one aspect of the game brings repetition and predictability.
It seems most teams are coached in a way that prioritises completion of sets and maintaining possession. Possession is pointless if you do nothing with it or your time is wasted thinking purely about how to get through six tackles as opposed to thinking aggressively, every tackle. All that seems to get done is six tackles and a kick.
I think there are three simple things that could be coached and used to give a team an innovative advantage, and that would change the game as we know it.
Firstly, what happened to the mid-set kick? To be fair this one does come out every now and again, but it is rarely used well. League players don’t play for territory, they play for possession as I mentioned.
However, if you use territory intelligently you can play your opponent out of a game. This can work particularly if you have already shown defensive dominance. Turning a team around with a kick they aren’t expecting can be psychologically irritating.
Secondly, why are short kick-offs reserved for the 78th minute? This one doesn’t really fit in with the overall style of the game these days. If teams really wanted to retain or gain possession at all moments why would they not compete for the ball at the kick-off?
Gathering the kick-off after scoring would be seen in the same light as a repeat set from an in-goal dropout. This would also have a similar physiological and field position effect. If one team started doing this all the others would be forced to follow, if of course they believed in the possession model I speak of.
Thirdly, and probably most controversial, is the scrum. If you wanted to shake up the competition as a coach I would start by showing your players how to push in the scrum. The league scrum has become a way of holding six players to give others the ability to play a set move. That’s it. It is the evolutionary remnant of a past age, just like redundant legs on a snake.
The first response to this request would be one of safety. Fair enough, it probably would be unsafe the first few times because the other team would not expect the push. However, like the short kick-off, this play comes out every now and again out of desperation. It’s legal and acknowledged by all as a way to regain possession when it’s most needed.
Isn’t possession of the ball the main thing in the game?
At the moment scrums are not viewed as anything of great importance. It is clear the modern athletic body types of league players have developed more agility and mobility. I think a move back to specific body types for specific positions is probably not the direction the game wants to go in the future.
However, pushing in the scrum more often and actually coaching it – as an option not purely from a position of desperation – would bring some diversity to the game it surely needs.
They say possession is nine tenths of the law, but I would like to see some innovation in the game of league. A bit of change never hurt anyone, especially if a return to former glory is all that’s needed.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
PB And I'm very defensive LOL?. In the NRL a team is not rewarded for either a conversion or a penalty goal attempt,if the ball hits the posts and bounces back into the field of play. Simply ,you kick a goal or you don't,no halfway measures.Accuracy is the crux. It would be akin to let forward passes go all the time. An even comp for the broadcasters is a great thing,that attracts more viewers than also rans playing with no chance. Fans have more inclination to attend games ,with the prospect of not knowing who will win.The best games in rugby league tend to be the games where score fluctuate and are close. Have a look at the respective ladders for NRL and AFL. Last placed Tigers on 18 points .Then 4 teams above them on 20 points. Last placed tigers has beaten 5th placed Storm,and second last placed Knights has beaten Storm.No on predicted those results as examples. Compare to the AFL ladder where 13-18 spots miles away from the leaders.The gap between top and bottom is far greater. The NRL salary cap in its oft criticised way,has helped make the comp close.
Russell Johnson
Guest
"Is rugby league starting to get monotonous?" Er, let me think - NO!
Perry Bridge
Guest
Here come the 'Intruders' on to the ground..... like it.
Perry Bridge
Guest
What do you mean by "And it does not reward mediocrity"? [I'm assuming re top 6 of 10 in FFA HAL make finals]. It is interesting though - is an 'even' comp necessarily a great thing? Irrespective of evenness - when you get to the finals, it's still a case of make the top 4 or you're right up against it. Presently the NRL 8th placed side is on 11/11 (W/L). In the AFL this year two teams on 10/10 (W/L) are sitting 10th and 11th. This is the flip side of an 'even comp' - is that if it's so even that a team makes the finals potentially losing more than winning or at best just a 50/50 W/L record - is that team really just making up the numbers and are pretty mediocre. In the AFL this year currently it's 12 wins (from 20 rounds) to get in the final 8. And 2 teams in the 3rd last round got locked out of mathematical possibility for finals - and this week perhaps 1 more or perhaps it's still a battle of 9 into 8 for the last round.
Happy Jack
Guest
yes the Walker Bros - the Sun aint gonna shine anymore
Happy Jack
Guest
NRL is more predictable than other sports but it means close games and endless arguments about key refs decisions. Some people like that...
Big j
Guest
Could not of said it better myself
Numbers Man
Guest
Take a look at how the Walkers Brothers are coaching the Ipswich Jets, exciting league. May not be great in the NRL but worth trying.
Super-Human
Guest
880-940 more like it
Kirk
Guest
Tell me one sport that isn't monotonous at some point? League is all about possession and applying pressure. It is applauded when the defense can hold out 4 or 5 repeat sets in a row. Teams are not suppose to be able to score tries off every set, you apply sustained pressure and make the defense tired. You make percentage plays and try and maximise possession. Rugby fans like to talk about how simple League is but there are a lot of different tactics involved. If the possession switched teams every 2 or 3 plays it would be a different game and it would be messy... hmm reminds me of another sport.
mycall
Guest
Not sure why people keep citing RTS as a small bloke... he's 6 foot and nearly 100kg!
big J
Guest
Really, the only thing that is boring and pointless about the game these days in the scrum and the penalities given for a strip when they have clearly dropped the ball. Scrums are pretty much a waste of time and have been now for years and when players are rewarded for poor ball security and just gets a little beyond the joke. It use to be the a drop ball was a knock on not a strip and the scrum used to be a real contest between forward pack and hookers, these days the ball is out before the scrum is even packed. Maybe the NRL should take a leaf out of the ARU (Union) book and have a proper scrum. Bar those two things the game is going fine. Oh and the overuse of the third ref but that is for other day's discussion
The Barry
Roar Guru
The little blokes are strong because of the training they do. Turvey, Jason Taylor, Sterling, etc would be doing more weights and strength work so they could tackle guys that come in at 120kgs. In their day players would be lucky to get to 100kg. Those blokes are all taller than Adam Reynolds or Sandow. If Allan Langer played these days he'd have a build like them because he'd need it. There's guys like Slater, RTS, Croker, Barba, Milford, Soward, etc who aren't massive blokes.
mycall
Guest
It's not up to the players to "decide" to push. The reason that they don't push is because there is little to no point. Half-backs don't have to put the ball in the middle of the scrum any more which means that the ball goes in and out of the scrum before pushing would be able to have an impact. Packing into scrums today, young props (or whoever is packing into the prop position) often don't even know the meaning of "loose-head" and the reason for it. One small change to the RL scrum which has only been made in the last few years which finally eliminated any possible reason to push in the scrum is that the ref considers that the ball is out once it passes the 2nd rowers feet. Playing lock, I used to love occasionally holding the ball in the scrum a bit longer to get the backs off-side when they moved too fast or the forwards broke the scrum too early, but now, even this part of the scrum is no longer a possibility.
Brett
Guest
Banter shouldn't be taken too seriously!
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Epi Now there's a suggestion! Interestingly, not quite the same thing, but occasionally the idea of a "wildcard" entry into the finals is mentioned (which might happen in some of the American sports).
SVB
Guest
A player like Jason Taylor could never play in the game today. He would be smashed out of the game. But he was an example of a player who thought with his head and played according to what was in front of him. He used instinct as much as he used planning and strategy. That's the difference. The coaches of yesteryear would allow a guy like him to think for himself if he saw an opportunity. He would be able to create havoc that way and help his team. Cliff Lyons, Peter Sterling and Steve Mortimer are other examples. The half backs and five eights are all nuggety today, and although not as big as Sam Kasiano, they are almost just as strong. They have to be to be able to play in the game today. Backs are fairly similar. Although guys like Mullins and Renouf had more of an ability to swerve in the air. Something you rarely see today. Most centres and wingers just run straight and hard into holes. I think there was more of an art to it previously. It has turned very mechanical. They need to stop protecting players who can't play 80 mins. That should be a liability, but they just want more athletes and less creativity, so they create rules to let guys who can only play 20 mins be able to play in the game.
Happy Jack
Guest
NRL is unpredictable - when there is a lost ball - which way will the ref go - stripped or lost ball - first he will look at the scoreboard...
Andrew Smyth-Kirk
Roar Guru
I agree kicking early in sets has happened a bit more, probably because of the 40/20 rule. Its amazing that the admin people would actually enact something that allows for smart territory play. 40/20 has done that certainly. Surely a short kick off is meant to create a lottery for possession. If you make it 50/50 then you could get the ball, no? I acknowledged the safety concern of scrum pushing but it is a contact sport. If a team does it, then continues to do it, I dare say that the NRL might step in, or the other teams would adapt.
Lovey
Guest
Scrums have to be competitive or dropped altogether. If the point is to hand over possession, but keep forwards out of a play, this can be achieved, but it would be messy. So I have come around to thinking we should bring back proper scrums. Why were they dropped anyway? Too many stoppages, or just to differ from union? A benefit would be tiring out the big guys, but a disadvantage may be that it discourages attack on the 5th tackle, given that possession may not be lost, anyway.