JimboJoe1006
Chris McKivat (8)
Thank you for such a good response, I appreciate it. Before I try to explain my reasoning on some of the good issues raised by some, I would to explain my personal views.
For good or bad, I have always believed in rigidity in the structure of a team. I agree with Deans’ idea: “play what is in front of you”, in terms of a more unstructured style of play. However, this is all dependent on there being an adequate structure to allow an unstructured style to work. If that makes sense?
Basically, I don’t believe an organised structure and free-roaming structure are inverse of each other. In fact, they are dependent. For example, Holland’s ‘total football’ was successful because the team was structured to play what was in front of them.
Therefore, I believe in rigidity, evinced by various statistical measures which every player must satisfy. For all his doubters, this is something Peter de Villiers did very well. For example, at every level and for every position, albeit with minimal margin for exceptional circumstances, there is minimum 40 metre time, deadlift, leap, beep test, height and weight to be satisfied. Whilst, this method has often run me into trouble when coaching teams without enormous depth, that is problem Robbie Deans, relatively speaking, does not face.
Issues raised:
· 6 to run at 12?
Put simply, no, as it would undermine the already essential role a loose forward plays in attack.
Loose forwards are critical in providing quick ball, and options around the fringes. Whilst, I do not believe that they must follow the ball around the paddock, and instead, I prefer each (6, 8 and 5) to stick within a specific “third” of the pitch. As a result, a blindside must be able to run in the backline, and should have a basic cohesion and understanding of the moves.
However if, as Spiro suggests, 6 plays a more permanent role in the backline, what does Barnes do? Slot him into 6, if so, it is irrelevant how much of his junior days he spent in the forwards, simple physics will tell us that his clearing out will be far less effective, and he will tie up far less players as a decoy around the fringes. Thus, comprising the entire reason for the switch of positions!
To conclude, Spiro’s idea is another attempt to contradict age-old rugby wisdom in order pack yet another tickle-toed, 85kg, ‘razzle dazzler’ into the backline.
· Why not 13?
I would rather have a direct, or straight, 13 than none at all. However, there are a number of minor reasons why I prefer the ‘directness’ to come from 12. Foremost of which is that if it all turns to shit, 10 can ‘palm’ it off to a big 12 who can take into contact, go to ground and let the build-up start again. Too often I see 10’s trying to create something from nothing. If, after spotting a gap and calling for the ball, the gap closes there is no harm is popping a short ball to 12. Thus, having 12 closer to the decision-makers acts as an insurance for when their decisions don’t quite work out, and stops 10 from being forced to ‘crab walk’ around trying to create opportunities out of nothing.
One is solution is to, as enforceer suggested, simply switch where the centres stand in set plays, as Toulouse have done effectively with Jauzion. However the importance of a direct 12 is not simply limited to set plays. It is just as important in phase play to consistently break the advantage line as in set plays. Thus, I do not believe the formula to do so should change.
The second reason is that, I prefer the skills of a team spread across the park. Each team should, ideally, three playmakers - 10 and two of either 9, 12, or 15. Whilst not essential, I prefer the combination NOT to be (9, 10 and 12) or (10, 12 or 15), as there would be a concentration of skills in a particular park of the field. Put simply, if 9 has a playmaking role, 12 shouldn’t, and vice versa. In regards to Australia, Genia is an incredible organiser of offence and must be given the reign to do so, therefore the third playmaker should be the fullback. Meaning the only role for a 12 to play for Australia is that of a crash baller*.
* (edit): I am not suggesting that their "only" skill be that of a crash ball player. Instead, I mean it is there only primary role in the structure of the team. However, is the ability to often read when to run and when to pass is almost as critical. An ability that McCabe has learnt very well so far this year.
· Poaching a league player done to death
I disagree. League is an excellent breeding ground for rugby players as it develops an all-round skillset. This is particularly important for centres..
I agree that established league players, without significant rugby experience, are not worth the investment. However, young players, such as the ones I suggested, could be very worthwhile. I started following league much more this season for the primary reason of assessing the sport’s potential as a springboard for future Wallaby 12s. Whilst, I am no expert, I will reiterate the potential that: Kam (Storm?), Cheyse Blair (Parramatta), Moga (Easts) and foremost Whitchurch (Brisbane) have as future rugby centres.
They are big, powerful ball carriers and have developed the other critical attributes of an international 12: an adequate ability to accelerate and pass. Put simply, they are BOTH bigger and more dimensional than the current crop of Australian 12s!
For good or bad, I have always believed in rigidity in the structure of a team. I agree with Deans’ idea: “play what is in front of you”, in terms of a more unstructured style of play. However, this is all dependent on there being an adequate structure to allow an unstructured style to work. If that makes sense?
Basically, I don’t believe an organised structure and free-roaming structure are inverse of each other. In fact, they are dependent. For example, Holland’s ‘total football’ was successful because the team was structured to play what was in front of them.
Therefore, I believe in rigidity, evinced by various statistical measures which every player must satisfy. For all his doubters, this is something Peter de Villiers did very well. For example, at every level and for every position, albeit with minimal margin for exceptional circumstances, there is minimum 40 metre time, deadlift, leap, beep test, height and weight to be satisfied. Whilst, this method has often run me into trouble when coaching teams without enormous depth, that is problem Robbie Deans, relatively speaking, does not face.
Issues raised:
· 6 to run at 12?
Put simply, no, as it would undermine the already essential role a loose forward plays in attack.
Loose forwards are critical in providing quick ball, and options around the fringes. Whilst, I do not believe that they must follow the ball around the paddock, and instead, I prefer each (6, 8 and 5) to stick within a specific “third” of the pitch. As a result, a blindside must be able to run in the backline, and should have a basic cohesion and understanding of the moves.
However if, as Spiro suggests, 6 plays a more permanent role in the backline, what does Barnes do? Slot him into 6, if so, it is irrelevant how much of his junior days he spent in the forwards, simple physics will tell us that his clearing out will be far less effective, and he will tie up far less players as a decoy around the fringes. Thus, comprising the entire reason for the switch of positions!
To conclude, Spiro’s idea is another attempt to contradict age-old rugby wisdom in order pack yet another tickle-toed, 85kg, ‘razzle dazzler’ into the backline.
· Why not 13?
I would rather have a direct, or straight, 13 than none at all. However, there are a number of minor reasons why I prefer the ‘directness’ to come from 12. Foremost of which is that if it all turns to shit, 10 can ‘palm’ it off to a big 12 who can take into contact, go to ground and let the build-up start again. Too often I see 10’s trying to create something from nothing. If, after spotting a gap and calling for the ball, the gap closes there is no harm is popping a short ball to 12. Thus, having 12 closer to the decision-makers acts as an insurance for when their decisions don’t quite work out, and stops 10 from being forced to ‘crab walk’ around trying to create opportunities out of nothing.
One is solution is to, as enforceer suggested, simply switch where the centres stand in set plays, as Toulouse have done effectively with Jauzion. However the importance of a direct 12 is not simply limited to set plays. It is just as important in phase play to consistently break the advantage line as in set plays. Thus, I do not believe the formula to do so should change.
The second reason is that, I prefer the skills of a team spread across the park. Each team should, ideally, three playmakers - 10 and two of either 9, 12, or 15. Whilst not essential, I prefer the combination NOT to be (9, 10 and 12) or (10, 12 or 15), as there would be a concentration of skills in a particular park of the field. Put simply, if 9 has a playmaking role, 12 shouldn’t, and vice versa. In regards to Australia, Genia is an incredible organiser of offence and must be given the reign to do so, therefore the third playmaker should be the fullback. Meaning the only role for a 12 to play for Australia is that of a crash baller*.
* (edit): I am not suggesting that their "only" skill be that of a crash ball player. Instead, I mean it is there only primary role in the structure of the team. However, is the ability to often read when to run and when to pass is almost as critical. An ability that McCabe has learnt very well so far this year.
· Poaching a league player done to death
I disagree. League is an excellent breeding ground for rugby players as it develops an all-round skillset. This is particularly important for centres..
I agree that established league players, without significant rugby experience, are not worth the investment. However, young players, such as the ones I suggested, could be very worthwhile. I started following league much more this season for the primary reason of assessing the sport’s potential as a springboard for future Wallaby 12s. Whilst, I am no expert, I will reiterate the potential that: Kam (Storm?), Cheyse Blair (Parramatta), Moga (Easts) and foremost Whitchurch (Brisbane) have as future rugby centres.
They are big, powerful ball carriers and have developed the other critical attributes of an international 12: an adequate ability to accelerate and pass. Put simply, they are BOTH bigger and more dimensional than the current crop of Australian 12s!
