Round 1 2015 Team

[yy_cheng]

In the old days it was dummy half to sterlo to Kenny to Cronin to Ella to Grothe but alot of the times their were opportunities to cut one of the players out our Kenny would go himself

Cronin played like a modern edge forward

Hayne played like kenny

Sterlo was always middle half.

However to get space outwide as poor described , a run around was used.

Sterlo to forward who could go at the line and keep the inside defenders honest or he would run at the line turn around and pass it back to a sterlo who was drifting across field

Brisbane and Canterbury still uses this

Obviously there was no left or right side a backs Bar wingers played on both sides

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The run around (Loop 1 or Loop2) move was also a lot more common back then when we had inside/outside centres.

 

[Twizzle]

we still do, unless we cant have 13 players anymore

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

we still do, unless we cant have 13 players anymore

Well, if we do, we have players of quite different attributes in those positions.

 

[lingard]

Sure but suppose we are planning to shift the ball from the right post. That's a big blind side, and a fairly common position to attack from. The 'halfback' is keeping the middle defenders (including markers) honest at first receiver on the right, with his edge forward, centre and winger outside him, plus a tight forward off his inside shoulder. Meanwhile the 'five-eighth' is out on the left with his wing, centre, edge forward and the fullback outside him. You want to get the ball out to the 'five-eighth' but the dummy half doesn't dare try to throw a long floating pass that far because the 'five-eighth' will get smashed, if the pass isn't intercepted. You also can't just put it through the hands because the defence will read the play too easily and also smash the 'five-eighth' as he receives the pass.

The solution, used by both Des Hasler and Brad Arthur (among other coaches to varying degrees) is to employ a first receiver that doesn't just catch-pass, but provides a ball playing threat to a 'decoy' runner (who has to be a genuine option in order to effectively function as a decoy) and therefore keeps the defence honest, allowing the deep pass to the 'five-eighth'.

Not many players can effectively make this decision (whether to pass short or out the back depending on the defence), nor are they able to make both the passes required for the defence to feel properly threatened. You could use the 'halfback' whose side of the field is 'blind' for that play (and plenty of teams do, including Manly), but if he is looping from the blind to the open then you're removing the blind side as an option (unless you have a playmaking edge forward like Glenn Stewart) and telegraphing which way the play is going. That helps the defence make the right decision sooner, which the attacking team certainly doesn't want to do.

Of course. This situation has been around since Rugby League was invented. And what you are calling the 'middle half' perfectly describes the traditional lock forward (in attack). Typical examples of this extra play-making link were players like Ron Coote, Ray Price, Graeme O'Grady, Brad Fittler (when he played lock), John Raper, etc. Also, fast mobile second rowers would sometimes perform this task. Players like Bob McCarthy, Malcolm Reilly. It was all a part of the accepted role in attack of a typical lock forward (and sometimes a second-rower). And maybe with the over-regimenting of the game, we got away from that a bit, but the role is still there and always will be. What I object to is that most of these so-called 'new innovations' in the 'modern game' are really just a re-naming of positions, roles and strategies that have always been with us. I feel that there is nowhere near enough credence given to the history and traditions of this game.

 

[lingard]

gee I wonder why

Because he got injured - and that was maybe due to the fact he played 80 minutes every game and got very fatigued.

 

[lingard]

If Seph Paulo played the game thirty years ago, what position would he have played? Lock forward. He would have been a typical lock forward. Nothing has changed except now some people call him a 'middle half'.
Honestly, guys, the game really hasn't changed all that much you know.

 

[yy_cheng]

If Seph Paulo played the game thirty years ago, what position would he have played? Lock forward. He would have been a typical lock forward. Nothing has changed except now some people call him a 'middle half'.
Honestly, guys, the game really hasn't changed all that much you know.

Seph is a crap version of dymock or j Smith

 

[yy_cheng]

Of course. This situation has been around since Rugby League was invented. And what you are calling the 'middle half' perfectly describes the traditional lock forward (in attack). Typical examples of this extra play-making link were players like Ron Coote, Ray Price, Graeme O'Grady, Brad Fittler (when he played lock), John Raper, etc. Also, fast mobile second rowers would sometimes perform this task. Players like Bob McCarthy, Malcolm Reilly. It was all a part of the accepted role in attack of a typical lock forward (and sometimes a second-rower). And maybe with the over-regimenting of the game, we got away from that a bit, but the role is still there and always will be. What I object to is that most of these so-called 'new innovations' in the 'modern game' are really just a re-naming of positions, roles and strategies that have always been with us. I feel that there is nowhere near enough credence given to the history and traditions of this game.

Lingard, you need to move with the times. Middle half, middle forward, edge forward, having shape, having structure is just sexier words to use.

Like merkin is sexier than Dick head

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Of course. This situation has been around since Rugby League was invented. And what you are calling the 'middle half' perfectly describes the traditional lock forward (in attack).

Well then we need a name to describe all of the modern 'lock forwards' who don't play like Paulo (i.e. pass more than they run).

Typical examples of this extra play-making link were players like Ron Coote, Ray Price, Graeme O'Grady, Brad Fittler (when he played lock), John Raper, etc. Also, fast mobile second rowers would sometimes perform this task. Players like Bob McCarthy, Malcolm Reilly. It was all a part of the accepted role in attack of a typical lock forward (and sometimes a second-rower).

I don't think so lingard. I believe all those blokes took the line on more than they passed the ball, which is why they are considered greats of the game. Joe Paulo passes better than he runs which is why he plays the limited role that he does. If he ran the ball more he would be wasting a lot of tackles, which is why his role is mostly to pass to better runners than himself. That's why he's more of an extra 'half' than a 'forward'.

There have been other examples in recent history, but even 'lock forwards' like Dymock and Smith (and Glenn Stewart) were really just edge forwards who happened to wear jersey 13. Paulo is not an edge forward - he plays in the middle.

And maybe with the over-regimenting of the game, we got away from that a bit, but the role is still there and always will be. What I object to is that most of these so-called 'new innovations' in the 'modern game' are really just a re-naming of positions, roles and strategies that have always been with us. I feel that there is nowhere near enough credence given to the history and traditions of this game.

The roles need to be re-named because they no longer describe what they do. The 'lock' no longer locks scrums, 'second rowers' likewise only pack in scrums on their side of the field, and many teams only use one genuine 'prop' at various stages of a game. We have finally accepted that all centres are split left and right, even allowing for some with playmaking ability to 'float' in set-piece situations.

But we still award Dally M 'Five-eighth' of the Year to a halfback just because he wears jersey number 6. In 2012 Paul Gallen won Dally M 'Lock' despite playing out wide (Jeremy Smith was the 'lock') and Nate Myles won Dally M 'Second rower' even though he played every game in the middle.

Why do these awards continue like this? Because old merkins refuse to believe the game has fundamentally changed since positions were named based on where they stood at scrums.

Until they get rid of the one to seventeen jersey numbering most fans will remain trapped in this mindset. When players can wear whatever number they want most old school fans will have no idea what position most blokes are playing. That's probably why they kicked and screamed when that experiment was last tried out.

 

[Twizzle]

Because he got injured - and that was maybe due to the fact he played 80 minutes every game and got very fatigued.

maybe, we'll never know

 

[lingard]

Well then we need a name to describe all of the modern 'lock forwards' who don't play like Paulo (i.e. pass more than they run).



I don't think so lingard. I believe all those blokes took the line on more than they passed the ball, which is why they are considered greats of the game. Joe Paulo passes better than he runs which is why he plays the limited role that he does. If he ran the ball more he would be wasting a lot of tackles, which is why his role is mostly to pass to better runners than himself. That's why he's more of an extra 'half' than a 'forward'.

There have been other examples in recent history, but even 'lock forwards' like Dymock and Smith (and Glenn Stewart) were really just edge forwards who happened to wear jersey 13. Paulo is not an edge forward - he plays in the middle.



The roles need to be re-named because they no longer describe what they do. The 'lock' no longer locks scrums, 'second rowers' likewise only pack in scrums on their side of the field, and many teams only use one genuine 'prop' at various stages of a game. We have finally accepted that all centres are split left and right, even allowing for some with playmaking ability to 'float' in set-piece situations.

But we still award Dally M 'Five-eighth' of the Year to a halfback just because he wears jersey number 6. In 2012 Paul Gallen won Dally M 'Lock' despite playing out wide (Jeremy Smith was the 'lock') and Nate Myles won Dally M 'Second rower' even though he played every game in the middle.

Why do these awards continue like this? Because old merkins refuse to believe the game has fundamentally changed since positions were named based on where they stood at scrums.

Until they get rid of the one to seventeen jersey numbering most fans will remain trapped in this mindset. When players can wear whatever number they want most old school fans will have no idea what position most blokes are playing. That's probably why they kicked and screamed when that experiment was last tried out.

1. I don't think we need a name to describe different types of locks. There have always been different types of locks - defensive locks, running locks, ball-playing locks; and some with a bit of everything (Price, Lewis, Fittler). Trent Hodkinson and Shaun Johnstone are different types of halves - do we need different names for them?

2. I'm not saying that Paulo would have been a lock in the same class as those others I mentioned (he wouldn't be anywhere near it). He may not even have played first grade in those days. After all, who wants a lock who doesn't take on the line and/or isn't a strong defender? But he's not a bloody half either, any more than James Graham is a half even though he fills the role of what you would probably call a middle half as well as performing his prop-forward duties. Arthur Beetson played a similar sort of role all those years ago. Joseph Paulo is really a player with no position. He has some of the attributes of a lock and some of the attributes of a five-eight - but probably not enough of either to ever make him a great player.
3. Smith and Dymock actually played very much in the role of a traditional lock and five-eight. Over the years there have been two significant sub-types of lock-forward (in terms of their style and what they brought to the position): one that was closer to a five-eight, and one that was closer to a second rower. Examples of the first type were Fittler, Dymock, Smith, Lewis, John Sutton and Joseph Paulo. Examples of the second type include Malcolm Reilly, Ron Lynch, Bob Lindner, Paul Gallen, Rod Reddy, etc.
4. To call players Edge Forwards and Middle Forwards doesn't go any further towards explaining what they do than any other terminology does. And what is a 'middle half' if not a lock or second-rower who sometimes finds himself in the position of being an extra five-eight? Something that has happened since the inception of the game.

 

[lingard]

maybe, we'll never know

That's right. We will never know. If I was the coach, I'd have two alternating dummy halves (Peats and De Goise). If I was the coach, we probably wouldn't win a game though. I'm happy to go with whatever Arthur decides. I have a great deal of faith in him at the moment.

 

[Obscene Assassin]

1) Middle forward is the position they play, middle half is the role that they play. It's just easier to describe Sef as a middle half because that describes his exact role in the team than middle forward does.
2) At full strength earlier this year Paulo was on the bench, now that we have Gower and Edwards who will cover his role within the team I don't think he'll start in 2015 either.
4) Could have easily described their role as middle half but Pou has pretty much said it already.

Can't wait to see how Ma'u handles inside centre this year.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The reason 'middle half' is a useful term is because it distinguishes one type of middle forward from another, and what's more it describes the attacking structure used by the team in which he plays. A 'lock' standing at first receiver with multiple passing options might describe plenty of yesteryear's forwards but it only really describes Joe Paulo and James Graham today, and because the Canterbury halves handle the ball roughly half as often as Parra's halves (30+ touches per game compared to 60+), Graham is required to pass the ball far less than Paulo. This is why Graham is more of a hybrid middle forward than a 'middle half' like Paulo.

As for the difference between Hodkinson and Johnson we could have different names for them if it helped describe the way they play, and whether or not they should be competing for the same Dally M position award, and whether it would be useful to recruit one into a team containing the other. At the very least we could describe the side of the field on which they play.

As for your constant reference to 'traditional' positions and roles, the fact you need to keep making reference to tradition shows that things have changed. Bob McCarthy was referred to as a 'wide running' second rower, however there is no need to make that distinction these days because all 'second rowers' (edge forwards) are wide running. This is closely related to the absence of 'inside centres' in the modern game compared to 'traditional' rugby league (even though there hasn't been an inside centre since the mid 90s). Likewise the 'lock forward' was once known for cover defence (presumably due to his position at the back of the scrum) yet today every player is expected to push across in defence as the ball moves away from them.

 

[lingard]

The reason 'middle half' is a useful term is because it distinguishes one type of middle forward from another, and what's more it describes the attacking structure used by the team in which he plays. A 'lock' standing at first receiver with multiple passing options might describe plenty of yesteryear's forwards but it only really describes Joe Paulo and James Graham today, and because the Canterbury halves handle the ball roughly half as often as Parra's halves (30+ touches per game compared to 60+), Graham is required to pass the ball far less than Paulo. This is why Graham is more of a hybrid middle forward than a 'middle half' like Paulo.

As for the difference between Hodkinson and Johnson we could have different names for them if it helped describe the way they play, and whether or not they should be competing for the same Dally M position award, and whether it would be useful to recruit one into a team containing the other. At the very least we could describe the side of the field on which they play.

As for your constant reference to 'traditional' positions and roles, the fact you need to keep making reference to tradition shows that things have changed. Bob McCarthy was referred to as a 'wide running' second rower, however there is no need to make that distinction these days because all 'second rowers' (edge forwards) are wide running. This is closely related to the absence of 'inside centres' in the modern game compared to 'traditional' rugby league (even though there hasn't been an inside centre since the mid 90s). Likewise the 'lock forward' was once known for cover defence (presumably due to his position at the back of the scrum) yet today every player is expected to push across in defence as the ball moves away from them.

I think it also describes Anthony Whatmough, Glen Stuart, Wade Graham, Greg Bird, John Sutton. There are (and always have been) different types of players in every position. Different hookers, different second-rowers, different halves, different five-eights, different fullbacks. Do we want to invent two or three different names for a five-eight simply because there are two or three different types of them? If we did that for every position we'd have about thirty different positions.
I know things have changed. The centre role is a lot different now, since they are mostly on opposite sides of the field. And we've gone from unlimited tackles to four tackles and to six tackles. And now we have scrums that aren't a contest; play the balls that are rarely a contest; hookers who don't hook; props who don't prop, etc. There have been a lot of changes over the time I've been watching Rugby League. But my point, basically, when I talk about tradition, is that a lot of the roles, stuctures, styles of play, what have you, that are around today - and people think are a modern invention - are really just a resurrection or slight variation on things that have been around for a very long time. And I do like the traditional names of positions. In thirty years time, when there is no longer any distinction between backs and forwards and every player is the same size and shape, you might look back nostalgically on your 'middle forwards' and 'edge forwards' and left and right halves, Pou.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yep, sometimes I call em five-eighths (apologies in advance). Or Cinco-Ochos, in honour of Chad Johnson

 

[lingard]

Dunno mate, I guess it requires a rare mix of learned skills and innate traits. And it's not even that very few players could do it (at all), but rather that very few could do it consistently well that the benefits outweigh the risks.



Agreed there are a few edge forwards that would be great at the role, but one reason they play on the edge rather than in the middle is that edge forward is a more 'important' position in both attack and defence.

In attack it is so important because a dangerous edge forward can either run at an isolated defender or be used as a decoy for creating space for the outside backs. He also provides a safe option for an under pressure half - turning a messy, disrupted shift play into a quick play-the-ball and more attacking footy on the next tackle.

In defence edge forward is so important because he protects the half on his outside as well as being able to help the middle defender on his inside. Plus the consequence of a missed tackle on the edges is worse because edge defenders are isolated more often and they are further away from the cover defence. Finally, the reduced workrate on the edges means it is easier for a quality forward to play 80 minutes.



No because he's also a weak runner that doesn't attract defenders or overpower an isolated defender for linebreaks or quick play-the-balls. He has more passing options closer to centrefield, and that plays to his strength.

I'm sorry to labour the point, but you have just perfectly described the role and significance of the second row forward. But you're calling him an edge forward.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think it also describes Anthony Whatmough, Glen Stuart, Wade Graham, Greg Bird, John Sutton.

Well I don't think it does. Just having a passing game and wearing jersey 11, 12 or 13 isn't the same thing. Especially because all those blokes play on the edges (except Watmough who used to up until 2011).

There are (and always have been) different types of players in every position. Different hookers, different second-rowers, different halves, different five-eights, different fullbacks. Do we want to invent two or three different names for a five-eight simply because there are two or three different types of them?

It's not the type of player at the position, it is the actual role played by the player. A 'lock' who gets 20 touches and makes 20 runs in 60 minutes is not playing the same role as the 'lock' who gets 30 touches and makes only 10 runs in the same period of time.

If the coach has told them both to take the third tackle hit up on every set and one of them is passing two thirds of the time then he is not playing the role his coach wants and he will get rissoled quick smart.

If we did that for every position we'd have about thirty different positions.

We would, which is why we need only do it for the three players collectively known as 'middle forwards'. because plenty of people still think there are two 'props' and a 'lock' and no other variations (or questions) are possible.

I know things have changed. The centre role is a lot different now, since they are mostly on opposite sides of the field. And we've gone from unlimited tackles to four tackles and to six tackles. And now we have scrums that aren't a contest; play the balls that are rarely a contest; hookers who don't hook; props who don't prop, etc. There have been a lot of changes over the time I've been watching Rugby League. But my point, basically, when I talk about tradition, is that a lot of the roles, stuctures, styles of play, what have you, that are around today - and people think are a modern invention - are really just a resurrection or slight variation on things that have been around for a very long time. And I do like the traditional names of positions. In thirty years time, when there is no longer any distinction between backs and forwards and every player is the same size and shape, you might look back nostalgically on your 'middle forwards' and 'edge forwards' and left and right halves, Pou.

I'm not big on tradition mate. In fact I think it hurts discussion and understanding of the modern game. An example is when people say Sandow is shit because he can't 'lead a team around the park' because that's apparently what 'the halfback' does. Corey Norman already said it's his job to 'lead the team around the park' and Sandow is to play what he sees. So clearly either Norman is the 'halfback' despite his jersey number, or it isn't the job of the 'halfback' to 'lead the team around the park'. Regardless, the old way of looking at a 'halfback' and his role has led to criticism of Sandow that was rendered demonstrably wrong by his performance in Dally M voting this year.

And I'm aware that there have been 'organising' five-eighths prior to Corey Norman, which is just my point - 'halfback' and 'five-eighth' are poor labels because they make a false or inaccurate distinction between two more or less interchangeable positions (left and right half). Obviously some left and right halves handle the ball far more often than their halves partner, but the jersey number appears to say very little about who is more dominant or how they play their role.

Anyway, I love watching how the game evolves, but the straitjacket of the game's language does plenty to hide the evolution of the game, and lose many of the changes - back and forth through different trends - from history.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I'm sorry to labour the point, but you have just perfectly described the role and significance of the second row forward. But you're calling him an edge forward.

That's right. 'Second row' no longer describes the position, and in fact tends to get conflated with jersey numbers 11 and 12, regardless of what position the player plays. An example is former Manly 'lock' Anthony Watmough, who was always described as a second rower.

Edge forward is better because it accurately describes the position (many people still think one or the other 'second rower' should be getting more involved in the middle) and allows discussion of those 'second rowers' that wear jersey 13 without people getting shirty and calling him a 'lock forward'.