How rugby league devolved into a defence-orientated quagmire

"The Blue Bags and the Blue Berries played a scoreless draw...." .....who are the 'Blue Berries' Tim? Canterbury-Bankstown became the Bulldogs in 1978! ;) Note : It was a 'dog' of a game with 35 scrums and 20 penalties yet not one paltry point!

The Blue Bags and the Blue Berries played a scoreless drew on Sunday 28th March 1982 at Henson Park with a crowd of 6,716 and referee Barry Goldsworthy. I was at the SCG when Newtown beat Saints 1-0 on Saturday 12th May 1973 with referee Keith Page and a crowd of 16,684. Ken Wilson kicked the field goal and Newtown were coached by Jack Gibson whose teams always had a strong defence. As a Saints fan it was frustrating to watch.

The forwards may be bigger and hit harder but they don't wear their opponents down like John Raper did with his low tackling. When players collide they each lose energy but when a low tackle is performed the runners legs are brought together and the tackler uses little energy as they're pushing the legs together and the attacker becomes a lever and crashes to the ground losing energy as the earth is a heat sink. That is why Raper's jersey was dirty but he still looked fresh while his opponents looked very tired and sore.

No mate. Unfortunately there is another Muzz. It's frustrating. I agree in most part with the author.

I don't really think we need to go too far back at all. In 2005 a relatively small mobile Wests Tigers forward pack with a pair of talented halves (Prince and Marshall) steered the team quickly around the park so that larger opposition players couldn't keep up. Enter the wrestle and grapple.

Not disagreeing .....To put the issues with the wrestle or the defensive orientation in the game down to one or two things is simplifying it way too much just as finding a solution is not so simple. I think you need to start back in the 70s and 80s and work forward to see the evolution to the modern game and what things happened that brought defence into the game. The big changes I note are as follows .... - Players kept getting fitter and more mobile. - Defensive line started moving forward quicker -Scrum changes meant teams took less chances in case they dropped the ball and couldn't at least contest it in a contested scrum. - Night time footy introduced which pretty much can reduce the width of the field due to dew on the pitch. Defenses can compress tightening up the middle then slide allowing more number sin the tackle. And attack also loses footwork due to the wetter field, which allows defenses to ball and all them and get numbers in. - Professionalism of players made them even fitter and more mobile. - Interchange changes. - Fullbacks playing in the line on their own goal line and no markers required. That's just a couple of things off the top of my head. One thing I notice when watching old games even in the 90s is that the dummy half was not the attacking focus of the team .. (Benny and Steve Walters changed this a bit) and play the balls were not as quick as people think. The game was built by playing with off loads and width etc...playing at the line more... And they are all mostly day time games! Even today with the wrestle, a good day time dry pitch game is still awesome...it is quicker for so many reasons.... teams can play the width opening up mores space in the middle between defenders, this means less people will get into the tackle. Footwork allows them to poke through and not be dominated. And this is where I would start before any other rule. How can we get more space between defenders and allow the game to be played with more width at night in prime time. Fatigue is one by reducing the interchange as you note..... but we don't want to create a game played at the ruck or in the middle 3rd of the field only by allowing surrender tackles....the other is by seriously looking at reducing teams from 13 to 12.... I honestly think this is the biggest issue affecting night time footy and needs to be seriously considered. Like I said though...there are number of reasons we got here and it will take a few changes to get the balance...we just cant look back with rose coloured glasses.

Is that the knowledgeable and respected Eastern Suburbs Muzz ?

Spot on Rellum ! I have been a broken record here for few years now regarding the interchange rule. I think the interchange is responsible for most of the problems we whinge about in the game today. The wrestle, the slowing down of play, the deliberate penalties , the elimination of the little guys in favour of 20 minute titans, and the one dimensional style of game the NRL has become. All the players are basically the same shape and size, with the quicker ones playing in the backs, while the rest are forwards and bench players. So I would reverse this modern trend and get rid of the interchange completely and go back to 13 x 80 minute players with 4 x reserves who may or may not get a run, depending on injuries or coaching strategies. Bring fatigue back into the game. Bring back 80 minute forwards and bring back some flair and nippy runners rather than brawny metre eaters.

Rugby league today is better than it's ever been. The outside backs are bigger, faster and much more athletic. The forwards are bigger and hit harder. The halves are smarter. I've seen the old games, are the standard was quite low. The kicking game was reserve grade standard

That’s two minutes of your life you chose to use to say that.

The Broncos early years, and probably even the raiders before that. Then you have the Canterbury ‘Entertainers’ of the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. I think it goes in cycles. I’m it was in the last few years that Melbourne had some amazing attacking stats and were scoring from everywhere.

From memory, Canterbury v Newtown was 0-0, sometime in the early 1980’s (1981?)

What year was that - 1986? Talk about cherry picking. The rugby league played by teams like Parramatta in the early 1980s was far more attacking and attractive than anything on show today. It just happens that Ryan perfected the umbrella defence which pretty much killed attack at the time. It was a radical change, not the norm.

Seriously? Rubbish article that was written years ago. The so called author is hiding under a rock. I reckon you're a Dragons supporter who loves tea cake.

Thanks Rellum. Good points.

Two reasons. First, you need to sacrifice running time to build that extra muscle for power. But mostly because of statements from ex-players. For example Luke Lewis said last year on the ABC that in the early 2000's they did much more running than when he retired. If I recall he was talking about how he used to burn off more weight from all the running they did during team runs as well as endurance training. But at the end of his career it was mostly just dead lifts and other power lifting.

I like a defence oriented game. Watching the skill and agility of the 'little men' doesn't mean as much if they aren't doing it against strong defences. Case in point rugby 7s has space for the players to run. I don't mind the sport but I find it less entertaining than league. I wouldn't mind a reduced interchange/more fatigue, as I think the players are fit enough to handle it, but not to the point where defences are falling apart. As for scrums, I for one am glad they are no longer what they were. I agree with some other comments in that scrums became tedious as teams played for penalties and more importantly they were dangerous. Having said that, currently the rule still states that the ball must be fed into the 'tunnel' between the two openside front rowers. You can feed it on an angle towards your forwards but it is still supposed to be fed into the tunnel. I would like this to be this enforced, without the refs needing to coach it, or the chance for a do over if you do it wrong. If the half gets it wrong, they lose the feed to the other team. This will make it slightly more of a contest but will still result in the overwhelming majority of scrums won by the feeding team, as they should be.

Rellum, I'd be very interested in why this is your view. Is it because you think that forwards don't do the road work they used to do. I recall seeing a film years ago of Johnny Raper heading off for a run on a Sunday from his mother's house, and he did look pretty fit.

The game became very attacking in the 90's to early naughties.

As a RL fan I too feel defence is becoming a bogfest in the game. I would much rather look at exciting play with scintillating tries scored from anywhere on the field. It was stated earlier on here that the 80's produced some low scoring GFs when Warren Ryan was at his coaching peak. One scribe at the time wrote that the holy grail of RL would be to score a try in a GF the way the game was going. The game has evolved and not for the better. All this structured play is not what RL is about. Joe Blow must defend on the right, Harry Hooray must defend on the left is over the top. Many years ago I listened in on a junior coaching clinic up country hosted by John Monie, Parramatta's coach at the time. He said wherever a player is he must defend there. He quoted a time when Paul Mares ran down someone in cover defence and had to defend against a winger on the next play. He said every player had to be able to defend against anyone. Attacking play, skillful off the cuff attack is what gets the crowd on it's feet, not tackle 1 play the ball etc then a kick on 5. It has been said by many over time that the interchange should be reduced and I totally agree. We all have opinions on what number and mine is six interchanges, 3 in the first and 3 in the second. If the three are not used in the 1st half then they are lost, use them or lose them. Fatigue will come into it, no doubt about that. Someone here said that forwards nowadays are so fit they will last out OK unlike yesteryear when the fitness levels were way below today's standard. Sure, they are aerobically fitter but also bigger carrying more body mass and will tire out in the back ends of each half. As for scrums, no thanks, just hand the ball over to the other team and get on with the game. As much as I like RL, my enthusiasm levels are not what they were because of the spectacle which is why I don't attend games anymore, not even in my home area. If the new rules coming in next weekend bring the game to life, producing entertaining footy then Peter V deserves a medal.