Why dont teams inside the 40 attack from the get go?

[GW.]

GW here,

Something that bugs me.

I often wonder things before they become mainstream in league circles.

In the 90s i wondered why players dont get super muscly (they have), i wondered why teams dont attempt to have player shields for bombs (they now do), i wonder why teams dont kick sideways like a pass (Tim Smith and BGraith Anasta started doing started doing it, however the practice has now ceased).

My next one, that i dont understand, is why dont teams, who receive the ball from an opponents knock on, or a penalty, start attacking from the outset?


When deep in our own territory, a team will attempt to hit up to get into an attacking position on the last right? then they will have a real go.

However, 40 metres and less is striking distance. Why dont teams go hard out from the beginning or tackle 2?

If teams make a mistake on the opponents ten metres line, it is little different than letting it get to the fifth tackle and be in somewhat the same position. The risk of making a mistake on tackle 2 gets you into the same position as tackle 5 turnover. However, you have now taken 4/5 real bites at the cherry, opposed to 1/2 at the end.

Doesnt this make mathematical sense?

Another is why dont teams take more short kick offs? they get it back 40 percent of the time, with a bit of practice this will get up to 50 percent. Then you have every player on the other team guessing and when you DO drive one deep, theres more chance you'll hit a hole and it will roll dead, since more players are upfront.


Am i ahead of my time or what?

 

[Frank Discussion]

- Go down to local rugby league club.
- Sign up as coach (coaches are thin on the ground you will get a job)
- Start coaching team.
- Instruct them to start attacking from their own 40 on tackle 1 or 2.
- Answer your own question.
- Cease posting idiotic suggestions on internet forum.

 

[GW.]

- Go down to local rugby league club.
- Sign up as coach (coaches are thin on the ground you will get a job)
- Start coaching team.
- Instruct them to start attacking from their own 40 on tackle 1 or 2.
- Answer your own question.
- Cease posting idiotic suggestions on internet forum.

Whos the idiot?

Attacking INSIDE the OPPONENTS 40, not from long range. Idiot.

 

[OVP]

I think you should be ringing Todd Greenberg every 10 minutes until he agrees to employ you. Once employed by NRL, you can then continually spam Mr Greenberg with your brilliant ideas until he changes the rules of rugby league. That way, you can stop annoying us.

 

[Nightward]

The way the rules and competition are set up, playing to the numbers by going one out for 3-4 tackles and shifting wide is more likely to yield results than trying to attack from the outset even when you start in the opposing half.

You'd need to go back and start with 11-year-olds if you wanted to teach them to take on the line like players used to in the 80s and early 90s. The current crop of players has had those instincts and abilities trained out of them for the most part.

 

[GW.]

I think you should be ringing Todd Greenberg every 10 minutes until he agrees to employ you. Once employed by NRL, you can then continually spam Mr Greenberg with your brilliant ideas until he changes the rules of rugby league. That way, you can stop annoying us.

My posts lately have been thought provoking, what is it that you dont like about them? they are different, but they are essentially discussion forums. Im a member of a few forums, and i dont cop any of this poo i have recently, just for throwing out ideas and asking questions?

 

[GW.]

The way the rules and competition are set up, playing to the numbers by going one out for 3-4 tackles and shifting wide is more likely to yield results than trying to attack from the outset even when you start in the opposing half.

You'd need to go back and start with 11-year-olds if you wanted to teach them to take on the line like players used to in the 80s and early 90s. The current crop of players has had those instincts and abilities trained out of them for the most part.

yep, this is the issue. I think its a problem.

That said, i think it just takes a creative coach to think of the mathematics of it all.

In a sit n go poker tournament, its been proven mathematically that as long as you are on the bubble, you can play stupid and risky and come out with +EV of winning or cashing over the long run, just by going all in. The trick is to be close to the money. Its the same concept really

 

[Frank Discussion]

Whos the idiot?

Attacking INSIDE the OPPONENTS 40, not from long range. Idiot.

Sigh. The context is the same.

-If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 the defence is set and can much more easily handle an attacking raid.
-If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 you are essentially going sideways and open yourself up for a big defensive hit. Set defenders love sideways runners and you have all the associated fallback of a poor carry (slow play the ball etc). Then it is nigh on impossible to go forward for the rest of the set.
- If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 you have not drawn any defenders into the middle of the field making a shift much easier to handle.
- If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 for the reasons outlined above you dramatically increase your chance of an error meaning you gift the opposition time in possession thus tiring your defenders out.
- More than 70% of tries in rugby league are scored with a play close to the line with a barge-over/offload/short/passing rush or short kick which cannot be achieved when you are 15-40m out.
- Most tries scored from outside the 15m zone are done on the back of a good roll forward, quick play the balls and ruck speed dominance exposing edge D. How do you expect to create that when you have no go forward?

Idiot.

 

[T-Boon]

Solid ideas.

One idea I had was when playing Melbourne teams should break their rhythm up by playing the ball more slowly. Storm have perfected the art of controlling the ruck and playing the game at their own rhythm. Two or three tackles each set get up take your time playing it - make them stand there a while.
In addition throw the ball around more, sacrifice territory just to keep the ball alive, maybe even run slightly backward to make some fool chase you - then promote the ball to a support player when you have isolated the defender...
The game needs more ideas from outside the box.

 

[Nightward]

There are some coaches like the Walker brothers from the Jets in the Queensland Cup who encourage a more aggressive, less structured form of attack, including kicks early in the tackle count. It's just a lot more hit and miss than one out, one out, one out, one out, one out, kick for in-goal. More interesting to watch, absolutely, but coaches live and die by their weekly results, and the more boring form is likelier to yield wins over the course of a season, especially if the defence is solid.

Attacking play isn't really rewarded by the rules or by the referees, so they play to the statistics.

 

[GW.]

Sigh. The context is the same.

-If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 the defence is set and can much more easily handle an attacking raid.
-If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 you are essentially going sideways and open yourself up for a big defensive hit. Set defenders love sideways runners and you have all the associated fallback of a poor carry (slow play the ball etc). Then it is nigh on impossible to go forward for the rest of the set.
- If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 you have not drawn any defenders into the middle of the field making a shift much easier to handle.
- If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 for the reasons outlined above you dramatically increase your chance of an error meaning you gift the opposition time in possession thus tiring your defenders out.
- More than 70% of tries in rugby league are scored with a play close to the line with a barge-over/offload/short/passing rush or short kick which cannot be achieved when you are 15-40m out.
- Most tries scored from outside the 15m zone are done on the back of a good roll forward, quick play the balls and ruck speed dominance exposing edge D. How do you expect to create that when you have no go forward?

Idiot.

Did you need to tack on the profanity at the end? it was a good post till you got to the condescending part.

Thing is, players can stil go for the offload or something up the middle at least, it doesnt necessarily have to be the most expansive move. It can just be a scoring reward risk.

 

[GW.]

Attacking play isn't really rewarded by the rules or by the referees, so they play to the statistics.

This is what ive been saying the last few days, but people here are more passionate about defending the status quo than their own children!

Anothe novel idea ive wondered is why some players dont go for a massive hit up from dummy half.

For instance,
when tackled two metres out and everythings all happening in the space of a metre, why not get the Kasiano types to take a big charge from 15m out, runstraight into dummy half, and bang himself over the line?

NO WAY will he be stopped! there will be saome skill from picking it up, but that can be mastered.

You could then have decoy plays where the hooker runs over it or Kasiano runs over it etc.

 

[OVP]

My posts lately have been thought provoking, what is it that you dont like about them? they are different, but they are essentially discussion forums. Im a member of a few forums, and i dont cop any of this poo i have recently, just for throwing out ideas and asking questions?

Your first post was about lack of speed in rugby league. Shane Whereat was fast, so was Lee Oudenryn and Darren Clark. Speed don't mean shit if you can't do the basics. Give me skill over speed anyday.

Your second post was about what we would do if we were the top dog in NRL. None of us would actually be employed by the NRL so who cares. Go talk to some old geezer down the pub and ask him.

This post is about making the players attack from the get go when in the other teams 40. Why are you asking us ? You should ask a coach.

And lastly, because you're a fascist.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

For instance,
when tackled two metres out and everythings all happening in the space of a metre, why not get the Kasiano types to take a big charge from 15m out, runstraight into dummy half, and bang himself over the line?

lol fmd

 

[T-Boon]

Sigh. The context is the same.

-If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 the defence is set and can much more easily handle an attacking raid.
-If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 you are essentially going sideways and open yourself up for a big defensive hit. Set defenders love sideways runners and you have all the associated fallback of a poor carry (slow play the ball etc). Then it is nigh on impossible to go forward for the rest of the set.
- If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 you have not drawn any defenders into the middle of the field making a shift much easier to handle.
- If you shift the ball on tackle 1 or 2 for the reasons outlined above you dramatically increase your chance of an error meaning you gift the opposition time in possession thus tiring your defenders out.
- More than 70% of tries in rugby league are scored with a play close to the line with a barge-over/offload/short/passing rush or short kick which cannot be achieved when you are 15-40m out.
- Most tries scored from outside the 15m zone are done on the back of a good roll forward, quick play the balls and ruck speed dominance exposing edge D. How do you expect to create that when you have no go forward?

Idiot.

This is just putting into words the cowardly theory of brainless coaches who come from in the system and cannot see beyond the old regular methods.
When teams break with these theories (eg: 5 minutes to go with 2 tries needed) team with lead craps themselves because predictability goes out the window and pursuing team gets creative - usually to great effect. This is when the game looks great.
Parra did away with these old structures in 09 and teams did not know what the hell to do about it.

 

[GW.]

Your first post was about lack of speed in rugby league. Shane Whereat was fast, so was Lee Oudenryn and Darren Clark. Speed don't mean shit if you can't do the basics. Give me skill over speed anyday.

Your second post was about what we would do if we were the top dog in NRL. None of us would actually be employed by the NRL so who cares. Go talk to some old geezer down the pub and ask him.

This post is about making the players attack from the get go when in the other teams 40. Why are you asking us ? You should ask a coach.

And lastly, because you're a fascist.

1. You misunderstood if you thought I was clueless about why size is beating skill. Thats not my argument, as i sai repeatedly. My argument was, the game needs to be opened up to add the extra dimension of speed to once again be a factor. The best attacking plays we all collectively jizz over, are the ones with expansive athletic feats and flashy running. As i mentioned in that thread, no hit up and leg drive play ever made a season highlight reel. We want and crave and jizz over plays that involve teams going the length of the fields, yet we actively discourage it in our rules. Why is that?

2. I dont think on a forum entitled news,Views and gossip, its sacriledge to ask the fans collectively what the would like to see more of in Rugby league?

3. Why do anything? Why do you read LU when you can read a newspaper? Its RL discussion, no ones making you reply. I dont post replies just to annoy people for the hell of it.

4. Violence gets things done, when theres no other option, we need to level the playing field or culturally, we are bullied and eradicated. Thats why countries have armies, thats why police carry guns. Lets chat more in 4C if you want to divert off topic.

 

[T-Boon]

Your first post was about lack of speed in rugby league. Shane Whereat was fast, so was Lee Oudenryn and Darren Clark. Speed don't mean shit if you can't do the basics. Give me skill over speed anyday.

Your second post was about what we would do if we were the top dog in NRL. None of us would actually be employed by the NRL so who cares. Go talk to some old geezer down the pub and ask him.

This post is about making the players attack from the get go when in the other teams 40. Why are you asking us ? You should ask a coach.

And lastly, because you're a fascist.

Why whinge about referee's or talk about anything - its all just talk.
There are plenty of threads about last nights game and how the refs cost us this or that. This thread appeals to people who want to think about improving the game rather than just whinge about stuff.

 

[GW.]

This is just putting into words the cowardly theory of brainless coaches who come from in the system and cannot see beyond the old regular methods.
When teams break with these theories (eg: 5 minutes to go with 2 tries needed) team with lead craps themselves because predictability goes out the window and pursuing team gets creative - usually to great effect. This is when the game looks great.
Parra did away with these old structures in 09 and teams did not know what the hell to do about it.

Absolutely!

And these moments are later cited by those that advocate for our game on one hand, yet push for the conservative gameplay on the other. Its quite the double negative.

 

[DiegoNT]

This is just putting into words the cowardly theory of brainless coaches who come from in the system and cannot see beyond the old regular methods.
When teams break with these theories (eg: 5 minutes to go with 2 tries needed) team with lead craps themselves because predictability goes out the window and pursuing team gets creative - usually to great effect. This is when the game looks great.
Parra did away with these old structures in 09 and teams did not know what the hell to do about it.

Parra 09 is a bad example. In 09 there forwards were going forward hard and fast, allowing offloads and for the likes of hayne to play against defences on the backfoot. Come season 2010 the forwards weren't getting forwards hard and fast, the offloads became ineffective and hayne had a mixed year.

Teams behind with 5 minutes to go do throw the kitchen sink at the opposition, and it is exciting, but on most occasions the teams that are playing that do or die football fall short.

The balance of defence and attack is what makes rugby league so good. If we tamper with it and artificially make attack more easily then it dilutes the game imo. A game with a 18-16 scoreline is almost always more exciting and tense then a game with a 34-32 scoreline.

 

[Frank Discussion]

This is just putting into words the cowardly theory of brainless coaches who come from in the system and cannot see beyond the old regular methods.
When teams break with these theories (eg: 5 minutes to go with 2 tries needed) team with lead craps themselves because predictability goes out the window and pursuing team gets creative - usually to great effect. This is when the game looks great.
Parra did away with these old structures in 09 and teams did not know what the hell to do about it.

And yet Parra got beat in 09 by a team who plays the percentages in the GF.

Everything I posted is a fact. There are certain hard and fast rules for Rugby League in terms of coaching from under 11s up to first grade and I know this from experience because I have coached many many teams at different levels. All the systems that are in play in the NRL are there for a damn good reason. The number 1 underlying rule of Rugby League in attack is that if you do not hold the ball, you do not win- and chucking it around on tackles 1 and 2 is a sure fire way to drop plenty of ball. Leaving defence aside, the other hard and fast rule is that defences are much easier to break down when you get them going backwards with good ruck speed. Going sideways on tackles 1 and 2 which is what the OP is suggesting is self defeating.