Warren Ryan says what I cant

[BlueAnGold]

not so fast there roopy...
like beast i maintain there is not a better skill level today. your point about why the kennys grothes etc looked good in their day due to lower skill levels across the board is bunkum. you yourself have already statedthat the defence was far superior in those days, that the rules of the game have changed to favour attack these days etc. well if they could achieve the feats they did in a highly defensive period with rules favouring defence seems to me they must have had some extroadinary skills to equal what players do today in a poor defensive era with rules favouring attack. can't have it both ways.

roopy, are you saying that grothe was no better than mcdougall but was only made to look good cause of the average players he had to contend with. average players, geez mate did you ever see that dogs team of the 80's defend, try tellingthe mortimer bros,folkes & gillespie they couldn't tackle.theyd bash the tripe out of any team running round today. i'd love to see mcdougall front up to chris mortimer with only 5 metres between them instead of 20. lot harder to perform against really tough defenses.

i would like to see mssrs johns & kimmorley playing under the 5m rule where they have nowhere near as much time to do what they do today. thenhave noted defenders like cement, folkes, price, randall etc rushing up and smashing the crap out of them the minute they get the ball.then we'd see how good they really are.these guys have just got it far too easy at the moment, everything favours them.


lord ted
Agreed,the skill level,these days is superior in attack,but in defence,no
thats an oxymoron, one determines the other, they are intinsically interwined. poor defense makes a poor attack look good and vice versa. todays game has more to do withthe rules of the game than the skills of the players. your point rethe field goal isdemonstrates this. win bywearing the opposition out, thats strategy not player skill

all this is going round in circles so i'll just agree to disagree with you guys and like all ole timers just gorelax inmy rockin chair

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

BlueandGold,
I think we have talked ourselves around to the classic dilema of comparing eras, i.e. you can't.
I have given a bit of thought to Ted's assertion that attack has improved but not defence, and this does seem to be the case. I think a reason for that is because defence is hard to teach without risking injury to players. One on one tackling can only be perfected by practicing the artform, and that invloves a high risk of injury. I would be surprized if teams are even doing as much tackle practice as they did in the eighties, let alone more.
With attacking skills, the players could be put through endless hours of skill drills with little risk of injury, so all the extra time spent on training would also be far more targeted towards attack over defence.

Perhaps it is time for all us old fellas to retire toour rocking chairs to ponder further on this issue.

 

[BlueAnGold]

roopy... the eels/doggy game said what i couldn't, attack is only as good as the defence it faces.roll the sleeves up and make em earn every point and fight it out to the end. a true contest of character & skill

old i may be but i'll takea game like last nightsanytime over that touch footy crap. win or lose i loved every minute of it, few more games like that and you just watch the crowds come back

f*** the SL entertainment, give me a RL contest

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

I have to agree that last nights game was how the game should be played, and the defence was great by both sides.

Despite the great defence there were 7 tries scored in the game. A few years ago a great defensive game would have not had more than 2 or 3 tries.

I saw last nights game as having great defence, even greater attack, and the best part of the game was that it was an even contest.

P.S. I'm not trying to score points in an argument here. I can very much see your point of view and respect your views on this subject, but I still feel that attack is becoming dominant over defence over recent years.

 

[BlueAnGold]

no disrespect meant roopy but even you must surely now agree that attack is just being made look good by piss poor defence. the knights/tigers game wasthe most pathetic example i have seen of poor defensive structures and players just wanting to run the ball and avoid tackling at all costs.both sides where the same, not only did they not know how to form a defense they also had no desire to do so. it was like watching those 7's tournaments of a few years back

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

The Knights have a big problem with their defence that needs to be fixed before the semis. We have the attack right, but the defence isn't working at all.

The fact that the Knights are in the top four despite having a very poor defence all year shows how much attack is now dominating.

The team that wins this year, and every year, will be the team that can do both attack and defence well through the semis. The Knights need to find some defence, and soon.

My prediction for the finals series -
every game will have at least 30 points scored.
at least one finals game will have 60 points scored
we will see some of the best tries ever scored
most of the final series will be sold out
a lot of long time fans will complain about the defence, but a lot of 'September' fans will think it is the best finals series ever.
the team with the best attack will win the grandfinal

 

[BlueAnGold]

mate your deadset lookin at the world through blue & red glasses. my fault, ishouldnaused that game as an example.i wasnt picking on the knights i was just generalising about the standard of defence

hope youlistend to gould & smithon 2gb yesterday around noon , they covered this very topic in detailand am pleased to report they agreed with what i have been saying.now i know that doesn't mean much in the grander scheme of things but it does at least make me feel good

for your info they attribute the prepondence of attack to a poor standard of defence and put it down toa lack of coaching skills by the newer coaches. the general consensus on talk back yesterday was that the fans want an end to this park football and have more games like the dogs/eels.

i'll leave your predictions alone, for now

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Now that we are in the finals I thought this subject might be worth another look.

Having watched the huge scores being racked up in the finals I'm more convinced than ever that a great attack is now the most important asset a team can have in todays game.

A tight scoring game is the best to watch and you have more chance of seeing a close scoreline in a defensive game.

I think we really should look at options to tighten up the game.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Michael,
I have always been in favour of the team scoring kicking off. From memory, I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread (but my memory ain't what it used to be).

Reducing the 10 metres would allow defending teams to not use up all their petrol if they are faced with a long period without the ball.

Another thing I have noticed this year is that if a team gets a few early injuries to forwards they are in real trouble. The best example I can think of was the Knights/Broncos game in the first round. The Knights had two forwards injured in the first set of six, they managed to keep to score respectable till just before halftime, then fatigue set in and the broncos ran riot for the rest of the game. That's just an example, many teams have had the same thing happen to them. I think the interchange rule needs to be looked at to allow for injuries. I can't think how the situation could be fixed without coaches taking advantage, but it seems to be something that is unfairly effecting results.

 

[bender]

The interchange for me is a lot better than the old unlimited rule. However, i still cant see anything wrong with the old 6-4 rule or the straight 4 subs for that matter.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

For reasons I won't go into I have been reviewing this thread (for those in the know, I feel very, very embaressed).

In for a penny, in for a pound.

I would contend that Newcastle have had the best attack this year. I know they scored about 60 points less than Parramatta in the regular season (the next best, about 100 points further back, was Brisbane) but Parramatta saw far more of the ball because of their excellent defense. From memory, Newcastle had the worst defense in the top 8, so therefore would have had the ball in their hands for far less of each game. Another point is the difference between the team with Johns and sans Johns. Newcastle only lost 3 games with Johns in the side,(lost 6 of 8 without Johns in the side) so the average scoring when Johns was present must have been record setting I think.

The point to be made from this is that the most dangerous team in attack has won the grandfinal. On the other side of the coin, they had to get their defense working in the finals to become real contenders. If they had gone into the finals series with their defense in the same woeful form as it has been for much of the season they would have been out the back door very smartly.

The grandfinal itself was apparently the highest scoring of alltime. I think most would agree that the game was won by the first half attacking blitz launched by Newcastle. The fact that Parra came back in the second half is testimony to what a great side they are.

The question that should now be asked is - Is it a good thing or a bad thing that attack is now dominant over defense in the game? I would say it is a bad thing. As has been said over and over in this thread, the best games to watch are keenly contested, seesawing affairs that are finely balanced contests between attack and defense. I loved the result of the grandfinal, but I have seen lots of comments that the game itself was disappointing because it didn't have the same 'feel' of a great struggle between two passionate and committed teams that previous grandfinals have had.

I think something has to be done to make the game a bit more defense orientated. Whether the answer is reducing the ten metres, or finding some way to even out time in possession, or some other measure that I haven't thought of, I don't know, but I think some measure should be taken to sway the balance of the game back in favour of defense.

 

[Willow]

An enjoyablethread roopy

. This debate has been a good read.

Without getting intoarguments about the quality of footballers from different eras, I firmly believe that the attacking skill of players in the days of unlimited tackle and 5 metre rules were just as good as the players of today. IMO, Reg Gasnier was a champion in the 60s and would still a champion today, probably more so.


Whenthe old Northern Footy guys first dropped the number of players from 15 to 13 in 1895, they did so to open up the game and make it more exciting than Rugby Union.
It seems to me that subsequent rules changes have always been aimed at creating a spectacle rather than paying heed to the more the 'pure' aspects of the game. In short, I think rules changes are too often put in place by people who have never played the game.

It doesn't surprise me at all that in 2001 we have a game of high scoring affairs where defence is almost viewed as a hindrance rather than an asset of the game.

Back in Reg Gasnier's days. The defence and attack could touch each other and with no tackle count to worry about, the defensive team had to really work on it's skills to try and dislodge that ball. They did ofcourse have the 'rake back' rule in the play the ball which was a skill in itself and at least the defensive team (usually the hooker) had a shot at striking for possession.

But the game is completely different now. Some say the rule changes (namely limited tackles and the 10m rule) were brought in to increase crowd figures. This doesn't hold up. RL was experiencing massive crowd surges in the 50 and 60s. The game was more popular than ever.

Another myth is that rule changes were brought in to stop St George. I was fed this as a youngster but it's pretty obvious that their era was coming to an end regardless.

So why did they change the rules? Perhaps someone else can answer this better than me but I'm coming to the belief that it is because 'the culture' of Rugby League. Since 1895, there has always been an inherant need change things for the sake of change.

IMO, the current rules pander far too much to the attacking team and we'rein danger of developing a generation of players and coaches who will place a low priority on tackling. I'd like to see 7 metre rule put in place. Either that or go back to a 5 metre rule.

 

[Eldorado]

In for a penny, in for a pound.
Roopy,you should have saved yourpound mate . I recall my aunty once telling me that if she had of been born with balls she'd be my uncle.But as shealways insisted on me calling her aunty Ifigure if's don't really matter.Don't assume Roopy, if events during the season had of unfolded differently then maybeevents at the end of the season wouldalso have unfoldeddifferently. Do you really want to go there? Whose to say that if Johns had of played every game he wouldn't have been worn out and dropped the ball 3 times in the first 20 mins of the GF thus creating a different result. We can all rewrite history to have different outcomes but in your case best to just leave historyas it is.

As for changing the rules to bring the game back into equilibrium I whole heartedly agree.The current rules distort the game infavour ofattack, they allow players to look far moreskilfull than they actually are. It is an illusion.

Willow
Good post.I am always amused by people comparing players of different eras or even comparing what it was like to play in anotherera. I willget howled down for this but it is my contention that it would be much easier for a champion of yesteryear to be a champion today than vice versa. Training & diet has nothing to do with it, that side hasn't changed as much as many seem to think over the last 15 years. The rules of today are far more in favour of attacking players than they were on 2 counts. Firstly, players have far more room and time. Secondly, they are far more protected. Many great skillfull players were intimidated out of achieving their potential at a young age. When comparing Johns to Sterling I often wonder how he would perform againstTommy Raudonikis with thelikes ofReddy,Price, Boyd, Gillespieand Folkes belting the tripe out of him all game, and believe me they would. If you had a weakness those buggers would find it quick enough and he has shown a flaw there.What I am suggesting is that it was a lot harder game to play yesteryear and that Reg Gasnier would find it far easier playing today thanan A Johns would find itplaying yesteryear, of that I have no doubt.And before any armchair analyst jumps in to correct me just be sure you can fully explain just what it was like to be beltedby those guys all game

I also contend that even after 25 years there has not been one forward possessing the skills of Artie Beetson, he would simplytear any of todays teams to shredswith interchange and 20 metres to work in, evenwith adiet of beer and pies (which BTW was totally fictitious).

BTW, they changed the unlimited tackle rule simply to stop teams tucking the ball under their arms and just barging forward one forward at a time for one metre at a time for 20 mins or so at a time.