Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:19 pm  

Why dont we study videos from the early 90s and recreate some of the moves?

All this structured swinging the ball from left to right and no variation or set plays is making the game too robotic and boring.

Watch Australias first try in the 95 World Cup Final. Not one team seems capable of that kind of play these days.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:38 pm  

Absolutely - clubs need to incorporate more variation in their attack. Games are often monotonous, formulaic and repetitive. Go back to the mid 90s yes but you don't even have to go back that far - if you look at some of the games in the early 2000's and check out some of the attacking play there you despair at what games are like now.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:52 pm  

I’ve long thought about that to be honest. But equally I think the way teams play these days is that style but evolved and arguably more refined.

There’s a lot to consider really, even though the suggestion is relatively simple. Defensive structures have moved on from those of the 90’s and 00’s, player shape, game speed.

Perhaps I’m over complicating it but it really is an interesting debating topic; will going back in time for moves/plays send us ahead of our time now?

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:58 pm  

100% Warrior wrote:

I’ve long thought about that to be honest. But equally I think the way teams play these days is that style but evolved and arguably more refined.

There’s a lot to consider really, even though the suggestion is relatively simple. Defensive structures have moved on from those of the 90’s and 00’s, player shape, game speed.

Perhaps I’m over complicating it but it really is an interesting debating topic; will going back in time for moves/plays send us ahead of our time now?

I think its more about seeking inspiration for ideas rather than copying moves like for like.

Castleford brought a simple run around into their play a couple of years ago and it ripped a few teams apart just because it was something different.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:34 pm  

The_Enforcer wrote:

Why dont we study videos from the early 90s and recreate some of the moves?

All this structured swinging the ball from left to right and no variation or set plays is making the game too robotic and boring.

Watch Australias first try in the 95 World Cup Final. Not one team seems capable of that kind of play these days.

I agree, to a point. Games are very much the same now week in and week out, little differs between teams other than the name on the shirt.

Thing is there is just so much more to it than how we move the ball around. Early 90s, players weren't as fit, there weren't the number of subs, there wasnt the sports science there is now. Teams/players are so much fitter and well drilled now, the gaps just aren't there that where there in the early 90s.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:26 pm  

MadDogg wrote:

I think its more about seeking inspiration for ideas rather than copying moves like for like.

Castleford brought a simple run around into their play a couple of years ago and it ripped a few teams apart just because it was something different.

It’s amazing how a simple move can open a defence like that just because it’s something they’ve not planned for. We had joy in 2010 with Joel Tomkins running a diagonal line off the dummy half and flicking the ball to Sam running the opposite line but we don’t seem to have invention in our play like that anymore.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:14 pm  

MadDogg wrote:

I think its more about seeking inspiration for ideas rather than copying moves like for like.

Castleford brought a simple run around into their play a couple of years ago and it ripped a few teams apart just because it was something different.

Fair point.

In that respect plays were much simpler back then but equally we haven’t moved too much away from it. The game still incorporates simple drop offs, run around, jockey plays. The only thing that is changing is the props passing the ball IMO. Like I said I think it’s more the game has evolved in attack to stay in front of evolving defensive structures rather than we’ve moved away from the style of 90’s and 00’s deliberately.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:38 pm  

ChrisA wrote:

I agree, to a point. Games are very much the same now week in and week out, little differs between teams other than the name on the shirt.

Thing is there is just so much more to it than how we move the ball around. Early 90s, players weren't as fit, there weren't the number of subs, there wasnt the sports science there is now. Teams/players are so much fitter and well drilled now, the gaps just aren't there that where there in the early 90s.

Hit the nail on the head. Add the way teams control the ruck in defence now which means that you simply aren't facing a scattered/retreating defence anywhere near as often as teams were previously. I see teams from years ago willing to go 5 - 10 metres back with the ball to create space to put a move on. Do that against today's defences and you simply lose those metres and get a slow ptb too.

Re: Attack : Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:06 pm  

We had quite a few successful set plays under Madge but Waney got rid of them.

Re: Attack : Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:30 am  

I think we will see more of the runaround move now that French is at 6 because of his electric pace and wicked sidestep