But Reefy you are missing the point and trying to turn on issue onto the stupid arguments of others (see your list).
Game plan variations would be slight tweaking to an existing game plan. I mean, variation even implies it is different, but we will neglect this issue.
Our attack had a different structure and different aim - a different game plan.
Our defence, again, had a different aim and structure.
I believe these differences were played to our strengths. We did not play in the same style as we have in the last 10 weeks, and we aimed for different goals. This weeks goal was to run the forwards around, and I hope that we continue with that plan, until oppositions can defend it - then the game plan will need to change.
Game plans change all season Reefy, and are not set in stone at the start of the year. And this is one of the criticisms Stuart received - he didn't change game plans throughout his tenure. The game plan worked in 2008, but it didn't in 2009 and he tried the same style. 2010 he did try to change but it didn't work - until Parramatta when he changed the game plan again - and it worked.
We are getting into semantics in this argument. I see a game plan that is something that is dynamic. It is constantly changing and evolving and adapting. But it does not mean it is the same game plan. It changes and becomes different. You, however, see it is the core structure to a team - who is in what position. This, to me, is different.
Either way, either of us can not deny the style of play was much more attractive than what it has been - with even opposition supporters throughout the NRL commenting on how good it was.
