yy_cheng
Coach
- Messages
- 18,734
Parramatta Eels halfback Chris Sandow another example of age-old structure versus no structure debate
Date
June 13, 2015 - 7:23PM
41 reading nowComments 5VoteRead later
Phil Gould
Phil Gould
League Columnist
View more articles from Phil Gould
inShare
submit to redditEmail articlePrintReprints & permissions
Erratic: Chris Sandow can be a game-breaker on his day.
Erratic: Chris Sandow can be a game-breaker on his day. Photo: Getty Images
Should we play with structure, or should we not play with structure? This question has haunted players and coaches for as long as I can remember.
Parramatta halfback Chris Sandow broke the vow of silence on the subject last week when he brazenly claimed his team would win a lot more games if he was allowed to play his own style of football, rather than being tied down by the methods his team is being coached to use.
The response from the club was swift. "We play with structure here; if you don't like it, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the arse on your way out". Or at least it was words to that effect. So, who do you think is in the right here?
In my opinion, neither party is right. But on the other hand, both sides have a point that requires consideration. I could talk about this for days.
Advertisement
Sandow is a very talented player. He can win you games. I'm sure there are plenty of other playmakers in the game today who, just like Chris, feel both overburdened and under utilised. I know what Chris was trying to say. He just didn't articulate it very well. In fact, if you sat Chris down and asked him to explain how he thinks he should play football, he probably couldn't put it into words.
I can certainly understand Parramatta coaching staff's point of view. They're trying to build a structure that is reliable and repeatable. These are the things that help your team stand up to pressure situations.
Anyway, let's leave Parramatta and Chris Sandow aside for now.
When I watch a football team play, I ask myself whether the structure they are implementing has been designed to take advantage of the individual skill sets of all players at their disposal, or if they are blindly hammering square pegs into round holes trying to make the players fit into the system they've chosen? There is a huge difference between the two.
I see far too much of the latter in professional rugby league these days. More alarmingly, I see way too much of this in junior league and junior development coaching. It frustrates me no end.
For example – if great playmakers from the past like Allan Langer, Cliff Lyons or even Andrew Johns walked into most NRL teams today, they would not survive, let alone be effective. Most coaches would try to change their style to have them fit the structure of the team. They would not change the team structure to fit around the style of these great players. All I can say to that is, WOW!
On the other hand, there are many of our game's finest players today who would not be anywhere near as effective, if their football teams weren't so structured. Some players need their roles within the team to be simplified and given to them in black and white. These players need structure.
There are others who see the game differently. They are more instinctive, spontaneous and reactive. Structure can suffocate them.
My philosophy on attacking football has always been pretty simple. The objective was to get our skilful players with the ball in their hands, when they wanted it, how they wanted it, as often as possible. I then wanted the other players in the team to be able to anticipate what these players might do when they got it.
Structure helps the team and the good players get into good position more often. Structure also gets the dumb players out of the way of the smart players. Sorry lads, it's true, there is no other way to say it.
I laugh at people who simply grasp onto the cliche line that coaches should just let players do what they want to do. "Don't shackle players with structure. Let them play what they see. He's an instinctive player, let him play."
I know what you are trying to say. I know the kind of football you want to watch. But this is not the way to go.
This is a team game. Every team needs structure. While I get very frustrated with a lot of the over-structured play we see today, I totally agree with the need for structure.
Similarly, I can understand the frustrations of a player who feels restricted by the "black-and-white" nature of his riding instructions every time he goes out to play. After the match he walks home kicking stones along the footpath because he's not enjoying his football, or he feels his contribution to the team's effort could be so much more if given a free rein.
My problem with a lot of modern-day coaching is that coaches either don't trust the instincts of players, or they totally underestimate the capabilities of their players. Modern-day coaching is very much "copy and paste". They study what other coaches and teams do; they copy and paste it into their own team's structure.
It's not the "structure" that wins games. It's the players' talents and their ability to take advantage of the opportunities that your structures have created. But today's coaching tends to treat "structure" as a "one-size-fits-all" implementation.
The most copied team over the last decade has been the Melbourne Storm. Their clinical, mechanical and seemingly foolproof structures have been replicated in rugby league teams all over the world. The problem I see though is that these structures might be fine for some players, but they can also be too restrictive, or overcomplicated, for others. What suits Cameron Smith, Cooper Cronk and Billy Slater might not necessarily suit the playmaker group at other teams.
I had the great pleasure of coaching Brad Fittler for the majority of his playing career. Brad was a footballer of many talents. Our aim with our structure was to get Brad with the ball in his hands in the right way, at the right time, in the right place, as often as possible. It was my job to coach those around him to get into good position, deliver him the ball, and be able to react to whatever it was Brad might do at the time. Never once did I try to instruct Brad what he should do when he got the ball. He might run, dummy, step, stand in the tackle and offload, pass inside, pass outside, pass short, passed long, chip kick, centre kick, or just try to power over his opponent. We had to be ready for all of it. But we left it to Brad's instincts to react the way he saw fit.
Fittler was also a player that thrived on structure. Through structure he was able to position other players and bring their talents to the game.
One of my all-time favourite players was Andrew Walker. Andrew was a tremendously talented individual who could do almost anything on a football field; except stick to a structure. You could never include Andrew in a set move, or a set sequence. For a start he would never remember it. He would never turn up for the play. He just couldn't function that way.
But if you said to Andrew "follow Brad Fittler, follow Adrian Lam, follow Tony Iro" he would instinctively tap into their talents and complement their movements.
We did have one play for Andrew Walker. We never told him what it was or when we were going to use it. We called it X-Files. We figured the name suited Andrew's personality. It was a very simple play. We got Andrew to stand very wide on the open side of the field and we would get Brad Fittler to throw him a long spiral pass. That was it. I would say to Brad, "Throw the ball way out in front of him and way past him. Don't worry, he'll catch it. I just want him to chase it and run onto it so he's moving quick when he gets it". I'd then say to the players around Andrew, "Don't call for the ball, don't crowd him, don't rush him, just let him do his thing. Andrew won't know what he is going to do until he gets it. You lot just need to react and back him up".
I can't tell you how many line-breaks and tries we created off the back of Andrew's instincts.
I remember when Andrew Walker went to play rugby for the ACT Brumbies and I was invited by their coach Eddie Jones to come down and speak to the group in pre-season. After my talk, I went outside to watch the team train. Rugby is different to rugby league. When they ran their plays, everyone ran sideways and at totally different angles to the way we run our plays in rugby league. It's obviously effective in their game, but I remember thinking to myself on the drive home from Canberra that night, Andrew might not fit into that style of play.
A couple of weeks later I tuned into the TV to watch the Brumbies play their first game of the season. Ten minutes into the match the Brumbies won an attacking lineout and immediately launched into their running pattern, across-field, passing the ball. Out of nowhere comes Andrew Walker on a hard, straight, outside-in line, against the grain of the sliding defence, virtually intercepting one of his teammate's passes, bursting through the opposition line to score under the posts. I laughed my head off. That's instinct. Some players just have it.
Chris Sandow has it, too. And the coach is entitled to run the team as he sees fit. Let's hope they get it together.
www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/parrama...rsus-no-structure-debate-20150613-ghnc49.html
I totally agree
Date
June 13, 2015 - 7:23PM
41 reading nowComments 5VoteRead later
Phil Gould
Phil Gould
League Columnist
View more articles from Phil Gould
inShare
submit to redditEmail articlePrintReprints & permissions
Erratic: Chris Sandow can be a game-breaker on his day.
Erratic: Chris Sandow can be a game-breaker on his day. Photo: Getty Images
Should we play with structure, or should we not play with structure? This question has haunted players and coaches for as long as I can remember.
Parramatta halfback Chris Sandow broke the vow of silence on the subject last week when he brazenly claimed his team would win a lot more games if he was allowed to play his own style of football, rather than being tied down by the methods his team is being coached to use.
The response from the club was swift. "We play with structure here; if you don't like it, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the arse on your way out". Or at least it was words to that effect. So, who do you think is in the right here?
In my opinion, neither party is right. But on the other hand, both sides have a point that requires consideration. I could talk about this for days.
Advertisement
Sandow is a very talented player. He can win you games. I'm sure there are plenty of other playmakers in the game today who, just like Chris, feel both overburdened and under utilised. I know what Chris was trying to say. He just didn't articulate it very well. In fact, if you sat Chris down and asked him to explain how he thinks he should play football, he probably couldn't put it into words.
I can certainly understand Parramatta coaching staff's point of view. They're trying to build a structure that is reliable and repeatable. These are the things that help your team stand up to pressure situations.
Anyway, let's leave Parramatta and Chris Sandow aside for now.
When I watch a football team play, I ask myself whether the structure they are implementing has been designed to take advantage of the individual skill sets of all players at their disposal, or if they are blindly hammering square pegs into round holes trying to make the players fit into the system they've chosen? There is a huge difference between the two.
I see far too much of the latter in professional rugby league these days. More alarmingly, I see way too much of this in junior league and junior development coaching. It frustrates me no end.
For example – if great playmakers from the past like Allan Langer, Cliff Lyons or even Andrew Johns walked into most NRL teams today, they would not survive, let alone be effective. Most coaches would try to change their style to have them fit the structure of the team. They would not change the team structure to fit around the style of these great players. All I can say to that is, WOW!
On the other hand, there are many of our game's finest players today who would not be anywhere near as effective, if their football teams weren't so structured. Some players need their roles within the team to be simplified and given to them in black and white. These players need structure.
There are others who see the game differently. They are more instinctive, spontaneous and reactive. Structure can suffocate them.
My philosophy on attacking football has always been pretty simple. The objective was to get our skilful players with the ball in their hands, when they wanted it, how they wanted it, as often as possible. I then wanted the other players in the team to be able to anticipate what these players might do when they got it.
Structure helps the team and the good players get into good position more often. Structure also gets the dumb players out of the way of the smart players. Sorry lads, it's true, there is no other way to say it.
I laugh at people who simply grasp onto the cliche line that coaches should just let players do what they want to do. "Don't shackle players with structure. Let them play what they see. He's an instinctive player, let him play."
I know what you are trying to say. I know the kind of football you want to watch. But this is not the way to go.
This is a team game. Every team needs structure. While I get very frustrated with a lot of the over-structured play we see today, I totally agree with the need for structure.
Similarly, I can understand the frustrations of a player who feels restricted by the "black-and-white" nature of his riding instructions every time he goes out to play. After the match he walks home kicking stones along the footpath because he's not enjoying his football, or he feels his contribution to the team's effort could be so much more if given a free rein.
My problem with a lot of modern-day coaching is that coaches either don't trust the instincts of players, or they totally underestimate the capabilities of their players. Modern-day coaching is very much "copy and paste". They study what other coaches and teams do; they copy and paste it into their own team's structure.
It's not the "structure" that wins games. It's the players' talents and their ability to take advantage of the opportunities that your structures have created. But today's coaching tends to treat "structure" as a "one-size-fits-all" implementation.
The most copied team over the last decade has been the Melbourne Storm. Their clinical, mechanical and seemingly foolproof structures have been replicated in rugby league teams all over the world. The problem I see though is that these structures might be fine for some players, but they can also be too restrictive, or overcomplicated, for others. What suits Cameron Smith, Cooper Cronk and Billy Slater might not necessarily suit the playmaker group at other teams.
I had the great pleasure of coaching Brad Fittler for the majority of his playing career. Brad was a footballer of many talents. Our aim with our structure was to get Brad with the ball in his hands in the right way, at the right time, in the right place, as often as possible. It was my job to coach those around him to get into good position, deliver him the ball, and be able to react to whatever it was Brad might do at the time. Never once did I try to instruct Brad what he should do when he got the ball. He might run, dummy, step, stand in the tackle and offload, pass inside, pass outside, pass short, passed long, chip kick, centre kick, or just try to power over his opponent. We had to be ready for all of it. But we left it to Brad's instincts to react the way he saw fit.
Fittler was also a player that thrived on structure. Through structure he was able to position other players and bring their talents to the game.
One of my all-time favourite players was Andrew Walker. Andrew was a tremendously talented individual who could do almost anything on a football field; except stick to a structure. You could never include Andrew in a set move, or a set sequence. For a start he would never remember it. He would never turn up for the play. He just couldn't function that way.
But if you said to Andrew "follow Brad Fittler, follow Adrian Lam, follow Tony Iro" he would instinctively tap into their talents and complement their movements.
We did have one play for Andrew Walker. We never told him what it was or when we were going to use it. We called it X-Files. We figured the name suited Andrew's personality. It was a very simple play. We got Andrew to stand very wide on the open side of the field and we would get Brad Fittler to throw him a long spiral pass. That was it. I would say to Brad, "Throw the ball way out in front of him and way past him. Don't worry, he'll catch it. I just want him to chase it and run onto it so he's moving quick when he gets it". I'd then say to the players around Andrew, "Don't call for the ball, don't crowd him, don't rush him, just let him do his thing. Andrew won't know what he is going to do until he gets it. You lot just need to react and back him up".
I can't tell you how many line-breaks and tries we created off the back of Andrew's instincts.
I remember when Andrew Walker went to play rugby for the ACT Brumbies and I was invited by their coach Eddie Jones to come down and speak to the group in pre-season. After my talk, I went outside to watch the team train. Rugby is different to rugby league. When they ran their plays, everyone ran sideways and at totally different angles to the way we run our plays in rugby league. It's obviously effective in their game, but I remember thinking to myself on the drive home from Canberra that night, Andrew might not fit into that style of play.
A couple of weeks later I tuned into the TV to watch the Brumbies play their first game of the season. Ten minutes into the match the Brumbies won an attacking lineout and immediately launched into their running pattern, across-field, passing the ball. Out of nowhere comes Andrew Walker on a hard, straight, outside-in line, against the grain of the sliding defence, virtually intercepting one of his teammate's passes, bursting through the opposition line to score under the posts. I laughed my head off. That's instinct. Some players just have it.
Chris Sandow has it, too. And the coach is entitled to run the team as he sees fit. Let's hope they get it together.
www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/parrama...rsus-no-structure-debate-20150613-ghnc49.html
I totally agree
