Warren Ryan says what I cant

[imported_Roopy4246]

After the Knights/Sharks game the other day I tried to articulate how I think the emphasis of the game has been changing from defence to attack over the last few years. At the time I put my points very badly, but obviously I wasn't the only one to be thinking along these lines, because this article was in yesterdays Newcastle Herald;

<h2>The vicious cycle of possession and point-scoring</h2> By Warren Ryan If the play-offs produce the attacking brilliance that was unleashed in the Sharks-Knights match on Sunday, it will be the most spectacular end of season ever. For those that like their football tight and tense, big on defence and low on scoring, forget it. Or better still, pray for rain. The game as we knew it no longer exists. Not only does the limited interchange produce additional fatigue, the team in possession is going for broke with the ball to accelerate the process. So attack rules and possession is the king maker. Make mistakes and surrender the ball at your peril. When a team forfeits possession against a crack opponent, the punishment cycle begins immediately and is relentless. One problem triggers another and another. Loss of ball means less ball, which means more defence, which means more fatigue, which means poorer defence, which means better opportunity for opposition attack, which inevitably leads to points. Then the process begins again. Kick off, no ball, more work, more fatigue and less sparkle in your own attack when you eventually get your hands on the pill. The 79 points at Toyota Park on Sunday suggests to those who weren't lucky enough to be there that neither the Sharks nor the Knights were interested in tackling. They had signed a mutual non-aggression pact. Not so. There was plenty of sting and spite for the traditionalists. But the game travelled at such a pace that the skilled operators were always going to find the daylight. There were missed tackles too. Plenty of them were on the Sharks' sensational No7 Preston Campbell. So what is happening? The avalanche of scoring right across the board - 1287 points more than at the corresponding time last year - shows that not only has the restriction on freshening up defenders taken a toll, but all-out attack and desperately keeping the ball alive has magnified the effect. Teams know that if they don't rattle up points in the time they spend with the ball, the opposition will certainly do it when they get their hands on it. Teams have to back their ability and skill level. Attack via very limited ball movement followed by a kick may look good in the completion column, but that kind of football is easy to defend, it doesn'ttire and it doesn't score points. But when you marry a high completion rate (32 from 39 possessions) with brilliant attacking skills, it's not hard to see why the Sharks put 49 points past the Knights. On the other side of the ledger, with comparatively poor figures (17 completions from 31 possessions) you can only conclude that the Knights are attacking wizards to get 30 points. So let's have a look at the five top sides - I don't think the winner can come anywhere below fifth - and compare the tries scored and tries conceded at the 22-week mark last year with those this year. First-placed Parramatta have made astonishing improvement this year. Last year at this stage they had scored 57 tries. This year they've run riot in attack with 124 tries. And in a points-fest climate, they've managed to reduce the tries against them from 64 last year to 55. The quiet achievers, the Bulldogs, have hit second place. Last year: 59 tries. This year: 93. In defence last year: 80 tries. This year: 83. This will surprise a few: The third-placed Knights haven't been part of this year's upsurge in try scoring. Last year: 109 tries. This year: 109 tries. Tries conceded last year: 78. This year: 89. The fourth-placed Sharks were slow starters this year and hadn't assembled the lethal combination that has been piling on the tries in the past seven weeks. Last year: 87 tries scored. This year: 92. Defence last year: 63 tries. This year: 77. The Brisbane story isn't as grim as opponents would like it to be. Last year: 103 tries. This year: 102. Defence, though, is an issue. Last year: 53 tries. This year: 72. One grand finalist stands out like a three-legged elephant playing hopscotch. Can you pick the other? The Newcastle Herald

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Sorry I put this up twice. My first try had a lot of hidden bits that spread the message over about two screen widths, so I wiped that and put the text into a word document and 'trimmed' the edges before reposting in a much more readable form.

 

[Willow]

No worries Roopy. I just deleted the duplicate post.
I know we supposed to take one game at a time but I'm looking forward to St George v Newcastle match in the weekend after next. You guys are going to miss Joey.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

I think you will be surprized how well we go this week without Johns.
I have gone through this before, so sorry if it is starting to be repetitive, but the much publicised 'losing streak' without Johns also coincided with our toughest period of the season.
I think the Knights are a ten to fifteen point a game better side with Johns, but many people seem to think he makes a fifty point difference.
The six games without Johns went;
Win against Penrith
Win against Cowboys
Loss to Eagles - where the Eagles won by two points in front of their biggest crowd of the season and played their best game of the season.
Loss to Easts - where Fittler pulled out a great performance to show he still had something to offer before the SOO. The game was fairly close and it was only Fittler who got Easts home.
Loss to Canterbury - where the wheels fell off, but the form of Cant. since has shown this to be not as bad a loss as it seemed at the time.
Loss to Parra - where the boys decided that they couldn't win without Johns, and Hagan tried to shake them up by playing several guys out of position, including Buderus at halfback.

All in all, the 'losing streak' was four games against good sides who were playing well. We can't win the premiership without Johns, but we can beat most teams I think.

Robbie O made his comeback in the same game as Johns, and he also makes a big difference to the side. The backline for the Knights for the Wests game of O'Davis, Albert, Gidley, McDougall and Tahu is the best we have put on the field this year. Hughes, a current SOO player, is available if needed this week, but he has been given an extra week off to get over his broken ribs because we haven't got a spot for him.

The Saints game will be good at Marathon. Saints can win, but they won't get it easy, the Knights will make them earn it.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[BlueAnGold]

<span>hmmm, interesting, just what is he saying?</span>
<span></span>
<span>First-placed Parramatta have made astonishing improvement this year. Last year at this stage they had scored 57 tries. This year they've run riot in attack with 124 tries. And in a points-fest climate, they've managed to reduce the tries against them from 64 last year to 55.
yep improved their attack but also defence. The quiet achievers, the Bulldogs, have hit second place. Last year: 59 tries. This year: 93. In defence last year: 80 tries. This year: 83. yeah, improved attack but defence is the same This will surprise a few: The third-placed Knights haven't been part of this year's upsurge in try scoring. Last year: 109 tries. This year: 109 tries. Tries conceded last year: 78. This year: 89. oops, what have we here, no improvement in attack at all just a decline indefence Brisbane story isn't as grim as opponents would like it to be. Last year: 103 tries. This year: 102. Defence, though, is an issue. Last year: 53 tries. This year: 72</SPAN> <span>oh, another casewhere no improvement in attack at all but yesa decline indefence</span>
<span></span>
<span>ok so im dumb andmiss his point as well.just says to me thatthose teams that have maintained their defence are doing better than the teams that havent and those that havent are getting belted by bigger marginsby the teams that have.out of those 4 teams2 have definitelyimproved their attack but not by sacrificingtheir defence. the other 2 show no improvement in attack at all just weaker defence. no case for greater attacking trends in those 2. </span><span>all i can see thereis that some teams are improving at a great rate and others areeither standing still or on the decline which accounts for the bigger scores by some</span>

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

BlueandGold,
I think the most telling statistic brought up by Ryan was the 1287 more points scored to this point in the season than last year. That would mean more than 200 more tries.

Ryan seems to think the extra pointscoring can be put down to the fatigue factor introduced by the new limited interchange rule, but I think there is more to it. I think the game has been gradually changing since the introduction of full time professionalism and also since the ten metre rule replaced the five metre rule.

One thing that I think could be done to fix the situation would be to change back to having the scoring team kick off after a try. This would make it more unlikely that a team could get 70% of possession for one half, as Cronulla did against Newcastle.

The point made by Ryan that it becomes a vicious cycle when one team is able to dominate possession and the other team uses up all their 'petrol' in defence is a good one. I think games would be more even and we would suffer less 'blowout' scores if teams got a more even amount of possession.

 

[BlueAnGold]

yeah, guess i can see that.the figures he gave still dont quite explain whose scoring those extra 200 triesthough. i'll go so far as say you convince me half way then, hows that

i like the change to limited interchange andwould like to see em go back to 5m in defence. make the teams work more for their tries. too manyare scoredjust playin the ball quick and gettin a roll on. like you say, just controlling possession and the 10m rulemakes it too easy.

i like to see teams create tries with skill not just robots playin the ball quick and havin another robot run it up before the defence is set. the game was headed down the path of just turning out quick ball playinjym junky clone robots withno skill

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

I'm glad we have a bit of common ground on this finally. I think one place there has been a lot more scoring is with the sides lower down the table. I know the Knights have given up some big scores against teams like the cowboys etc., but maybe thats not a great example because the Knights defence is a bit dusty this year for sure.

Lots of people think we should go back to 5 metres. I'd like to see a few games before they change the rule back, maybe the game has become too fast for five metres to work.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[BlueAnGold]

yeah but thats the point of goin back to 5m, slow em down a bit, make em work for it. i will not agree that players have better attacking skills today than say the lewis, kennys, gazniers, ellasand langlands etc, no way. you will never convince me that a muscle bound mcdougall is just as enthrallingto watch as an unfit but skillfull grothe was. its all just too easy for them today, everythings in their favour, just liketouch footy. i'm not saying go back to the dour defensive boredom of the dogs in the 80's, no way i want to see that shit again. i'd just like to see it more evenly balanced so the skillfull players can show what they have. right now some pretty ordinary players are being made look a lot better than they really are. as good as the webkes, harrigons and cayless may betoday their ilkwere considered just plodders under the 5m. give me an artie beetson any day, skill not muscle. half this lot today are no more than arnie shwarznigger clones, muscle bound hulks with no skill. bloody human bulldozers is what they are. <span>yeah, i guess i'm just showing my age and not adapting to the times. after all, they do class it as entertainment today and not sport eh.no longer meant to be a contest, justa spectacle.hmmm, wonder if the wrestlings on fox, now theres a spectacle, plenty of fast action there</span>
<span></span>
<span>i have to keep deleting these things and reposting them cause i keep getting this shit in it &lt;?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = " /&gt;&lt;o&gt;&lt;/o&gt; ..... where is that coming from?</span>

 

[imported_Lord Ted]

Ryan does raise some points re the flow of possession,the number of points being scored,the attack outdoing the defence.
All he is proving is that a newspaper columnist he can produce a topic.(Roopy,I read your post on the issue and got the drift)
Ryan was a tactically orientated defensive coach.This is the bloke, who when at his top, was instrumental in low scoring games.His solution at the time to produce more scoring opportunities was to advocate that league become an eleven man game.
The flow of possession can also come about by solid defence.How many times have we heard mention of poor ball security.
The idea that the scoring team kicking off,to me,is absurd.This was the go during shit league and not one league follower that I spoke with was in favour of it .I would say it(i.e.the non-scoring teamkicking off) presents an opportunity for the defending team to organize a defence.I mean the game is somewhat predictable these days,so a strategic defensive plan should be able to be implemented.
I reckon the 10 metre rule is satisfactory to say the least.
With the current replacement rule and the fatigue factora cause of blow out scores,well,so be it.
The game is evolving and this high scoring transition stage will lead coaches down the path of finding ways to win the contest.I would like to see where this leads us before suggesting that we return to the 5 metre rule,unlimited replacements or any other rule that leads to a restriction of the games current phase.

 

[BlueAnGold]

roopy...don't know how you nearly got me to agree with you but i think i'm swingin back now

i just reread an article in rnd 21 big league on the eels attack and want to raise a few more points.

the eels this year have broken the record for the most points ever scored during the premiership rounds. now 732 in 22 games, was brisbane with 688 in 24. the overall season total (inc semis) is 812, also by broncs in 98, which the eels will also break within the next few weeks. all this seems to back up your argument that the new professionalism etc has produced better attack. but consider this, even with the record the eels average 32 points per game.

in 1935 easts averaged 35 points a game when a try was only 3 points and the defence was back only 1m. seems to me they had better attack 70 years ago,or was that weaker defense? who can say.

also it is interesting to see in this weeks big league they have a table of the best for/against records since 1980. in that i see there are only 2 teams prior to the 10m ruleparra 82 &amp; 83. considering they achieved that in spite of playing in a very defense orientated period i cant help but wonder just how many points those eels teams would have racked up under the current 4 points a try and 10m rule.can you imaginesterling, kenny, cronin, ella &amp; grothe etc having double the space to work in?

no, i do not believethe actual attacking skills of players hasimproved at all in spite of professionalism,its as you say,the rules have been changed to favour attack.

lord ted has a very good point regarding possession and defence though. its no <span>coincidence </span>thatparrahave a very good defence and always seem to have at least 50% possession.strong defence does result inhighball turnover. weak defence seems to convert tolow possession rates.

just some thoughts for consideration roopy

 

[imported_Lord Ted]

It is obvious to all that possession is the key to winning games.One of the things that I find so frustrating,this year,by the Dragons is their seeming disregard for possession.It's all well and good to throw the ball round willy nilly,but inevietably it leads to a turnover of possession.
Another factor about teams controlling possession is that the majority of penalties in the game go to the team controlling the ball and this increases that teams share of possession.
I mean I would have thought that the coaches last words before a team left the dressing sheds would be about ball control.The best attacking side in the game can't score without the pill.
Alternatively,one would think that it be a coaches duty to devise strategies to maximise his teams amount of ball.There seem to me to be some stereotypical plays in the game that could become contests for possession,e.g.the kickoff: why don't coaches teach their players how to attempt to retrieve the ball from the kickoff.I mean do a union type kick off,get tall athletic players to run at a high ball kicked off at about a 12 metre range.The argument against is probably that if the receiving team gets the ball then to much ground is given away.O.K. there is a bit of a punt involved,but as a surprise tactic it may well work a few times.
Also in these days of limited replacements I would have thought that coaches would be trying to implement plays where the defensive team would have to travel the least distance,e.g.why not allow the attacking team to be,say 7 metres out from the defending line,instead of,say 15 metres,once your are defending from your line that's it(save travelling 3 metres).Hopefully this little saving on energy could lead to higher impact tackle and a turnover of possession.
The kickoff as previously outlined would also mean less distance for defenders to travel as well,basically kicking the ball towards the junction of the 40 metre line and sideline means that maybe 4 players form a ring around the receiver to contest and tackle,well the others don't have to cover much distance.
Anyway, just some thoughts on the possession factor,both in terms of increasing contests and energy saving, to allow the defending side a way of becoming the attacking side.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Wow, a debate about how the game is played.

Some very good points here.

Lord Ted,
It is ironic that Warren Ryan, the master of the tight defence, should be pointing out how attack is starting to dominate the game. I too want to see where all this leads before deciding if it is a good or bad thing, but the question of 'blowout' scores is a bit of a worry at present. Some teams are just running out of petrol when faced with constant defence, which leads to massive final scores. I think we need to look at some way of keeping possession even, or close to even anyway.

Blue&amp;Gold,
The question of skills over the years was the question I was thinking about the other night when I ran into Arthur Beetson and John Peard, I should have asked them the question, but they were a bit interested in punting at the time.
Anyway, the thought I had the other night was that players like Beetson, Peard, Lewis, Sterling, Cliff Lyons, Gavin Miller, Ricky Stuart and many others had amazing skills, but they were all real standouts in their eras. We have players with amazing skills today, such as Johns and Lockyer, but we also have kids coming into first grade who are showing levels of skill we would have associated with old pros just a few years ago. The young props Cayless, Ryles, O'Meley and Perry are all blokes who have the skills of 30 year olds at the age of twenty. The point I am trying to make is that the standout players don't standout as much anymore because nearly every player in the comp is really skillful. The players may be 'robotic' but they are also bloody good. Grothe and Terry Fahey and that other big winger (you know, the French guy) were as good as McDougall, Sailor and Tuquiri, but they were more exciting because they were standouts in a comp where they came up against average players every week.
Beetson was nearly the only guy offloading regularly in his era. The other day I was in the chatroom talking about Martin Lang offloading (or rather not offloading) and I said it wasn't his job. I was quickly told that every prop has to offload now.
John Peard was the master of the bomb and I remember that many other teams wouldn't even try it because it was seen as a difficult skill to master. These days a prop forward caught with the ball on the last tackle is likely to put up a good bomb if he can't think of a better option.
To put my point in a nutshell, the skill level over the whole comp is much higher.

 

[imported_Beast]

League has always been a skilled game, I do not believe the current crop of players, even though they are full time footballers, are any more skilled than their predecessors.
I believe it comes down to fitness.
Players, in particuarly most forwards, are trained to play in bursts, 20 minutes at a pop. If they are forecd to play beyond that then they grow weary and are easy meat for a fitter, mobile chap.
Players used to train to play for 80 minutes. In the 90s it is power suplements, anabolic or otherwise, build up that bulk, explosive speed but you sacrifice endurance.
Hence the cricket scores that you see in 2-3 matches out of 7 a week

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Ted,
On your tactics for retaining possession, I am waiting for the day we see a player, or a few players, really start to exploit the field goal. You kick the goal, get one point and get the ball back, do that three times in a row and you would have to come close to scoring a try (due to fatigue of the defenders) and the other team would not have even seen the ball. Kicking for the ingoal is often just a ploy to get a line dropout these days, so a field goal would actually get a similar result (retain possession) and also deliver a point.

 

[imported_Lord Ted]

Roopy,
Agreed,the skill level,these days is superior in attack,but in defence,no.
I can't think of one player who is exciting to watch in defence.There used to be players that could tackle around the legs and have the attacking player thinking about how he would land,rather than distributing the ball.
Rod McGregor and Bunny Reilly come to mind and of course John Raper.
These blokes could time their tackle,use their shoulder and all the attacker had time to think about was how to prevent their face smashing into the ground(admittedly not a lot of lush turf around in those days either).These blokes were able to be effective in a one on one situation,that's rare today.Lets face it,all tackling bags do is teach a player how to drive with their shoulders(i.e.left and right),but timing,doesn't seem to be taught.I mean if a player tackles someone as their ankles are together,its all over red rover,very rapid ground contact coming up.
I reckon that tackling around the legs is a lost art and its effectiveness is either underestimated or just not appreciated.
I saw some of the Knights V Sharks game and I will take some convincing that a lot of it wasn't poor options and deadset shithouse defence.

 

[imported_Lord Ted]

Roopy,
re the field goal.
I have been preaching exactly that for years.It works.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Ted,
Andrew Johns comes to mind as a great defender. He often forces a turnover by putting the shoulder into the breadbasket and really driving with the legs, and he does it to forwards more than backs because they are the ones silly enough to run straight at him.
An interesting point is that Johns' father was a secondrower with the Cessnock Goannas who was famous (or infamous) for his punishing defence. He was roughly the same size as Andrew but absolutely revelled in burying his opposite number with huge tackles. It was a tactic at Cessnock during that era to kick the ball back to the opposition for the first twenty minutes of the game so they could monster themwith their defence.