Up and In is Dead. Rejoice.

Post Reply
southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Up and In is Dead. Rejoice.

Post by southerntiger » Mon 16 Mar, 2015 8:42 pm

How good is it. Centres and wingers no longer being exposed.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0


User avatar
TIGERS
Member
Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 7:30 pm

Post by TIGERS » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:30 pm

Well... hold your horses on that one.
Teams do not go physically flat, they go mentally stale...

southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 8:34 pm

We will get caught out during the year but that we are no longer using a defensive structure that was last used in the late 80's at least gives us a fighting chance when teams make it to our edges.

Goose
Member
Member
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue 21 Sep, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Concord

Post by Goose » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 8:48 pm

TBF up and in has been used by various clubs pretty continuously since it was invented in the mid eighties (pretty sure warren ryan invented it and called it umbrella defense)
For me, Ive always preferred predominantly a sliding defense, the opposition has to get more right to beat it. The one exception, when on the front foot defensively, an up and in can force alot of errors.

southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 8:52 pm

Goose it hasnt been used excusively like we used it the past 2 years for a long time and no club has used it even primarily for at least 10 years. Most clubs play "up and out", which is different to the sliding defense we used under Sheens, these days and this appears to be what we are playing under Taylor.


Goose
Member
Member
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue 21 Sep, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Concord

Post by Goose » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 9:10 pm

Yeah you are right, it is up and out not sliding, they are different of course (it is the old school talk in me)
Melbourne in 06 definitely played a version of up and in, that is a long time ago, given their success I imagine others followed, not that I can name them.
Ricky stuart played that "shooter defense" for ages, which is an up and in style. That is probably 10 years ago as well.
But I guess you are right, not many successful teams played a mainly up and in pattern.

User avatar
pHyR3
Member
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Tue 12 Feb, 2013 7:11 pm

Post by pHyR3 » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 9:24 pm

we had to use an up and in under sheens because of our forward pack.

under potter he started to transition that up and out but JT has finished it off. Now that we can trust all our players to make tackles we dont have to shut down plays early on we can put faith in centres/wingers to make tackles and not play so compressed because we know our big boys can also make tackles.
''Everybody talks about their four brothers, we have 17 here so we don't really care about them."

southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 9:27 pm

Goose yes I agree there have been a couple of uses of it or variations of an up and in defence. The problem with Up and In is that there is too much pressure to get it right. When they get around your middle, your edges are threadbare.

Up and In still has a role to play at various times during games but it should never be a default structure as it was under Potter.

southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 9:33 pm

pHyR3 wrote:we had to use an up and in under sheens because of our forward pack.

under potter he started to transition that up and out but JT has finished it off. Now that we can trust all our players to make tackles we dont have to shut down plays early on we can put faith in centres/wingers to make tackles and not play so compressed because we know our big boys can also make tackles.
Mate we didn't use Up and In under Sheens from my memory. We tended to wait for the ball players to come and then slid. Thats why our middle was constantly exposed. I agree Sheens tended to use Up and In in finals games or in big games when he wanted to pressure the other side.

Potter definitely didnt transition to Up and Out. His was very much an old school Up and In structure which worked for us in some games (Manly, Souths) but left us very exposed on the edges in others (Bulldogs game which we won is a great example just from memory).

Thats how I saw it all anyway.

Goose
Member
Member
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue 21 Sep, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Concord

Post by Goose » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 10:03 pm

I'm with you, in theory Up and in is terrific, ball players are under pressure and forced into more difficult options.
The hardest part is theory, the decision making is very quick, and if you are wrong, you get punished, puts a lot of pressure on the outside backs decision making, particularly when on the back foot.

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 27079
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 10:14 pm

southerntiger wrote:
pHyR3 wrote:we had to use an up and in under sheens because of our forward pack.

under potter he started to transition that up and out but JT has finished it off. Now that we can trust all our players to make tackles we dont have to shut down plays early on we can put faith in centres/wingers to make tackles and not play so compressed because we know our big boys can also make tackles.
Mate we didn't use Up and In under Sheens from my memory. We tended to wait for the ball players to come and then slid. Thats why our middle was constantly exposed. I agree Sheens tended to use Up and In in finals games or in big games when he wanted to pressure the other side.

Potter definitely didnt transition to Up and Out. His was very much an old school Up and In structure which worked for us in some games (Manly, Souths) but left us very exposed on the edges in others (Bulldogs game which we won is a great example just from memory).

Thats how I saw it all anyway.
Yep, big games against the good teams, we focused on D at the expense of our attack...we bustled and frustrated teams - occasionally....maybe it was the surprise element, but i recall it working very well

User avatar
pHyR3
Member
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Tue 12 Feb, 2013 7:11 pm

Post by pHyR3 » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 10:18 pm

southerntiger wrote:
pHyR3 wrote:we had to use an up and in under sheens because of our forward pack.

under potter he started to transition that up and out but JT has finished it off. Now that we can trust all our players to make tackles we dont have to shut down plays early on we can put faith in centres/wingers to make tackles and not play so compressed because we know our big boys can also make tackles.
Mate we didn't use Up and In under Sheens from my memory. We tended to wait for the ball players to come and then slid. Thats why our middle was constantly exposed. I agree Sheens tended to use Up and In in finals games or in big games when he wanted to pressure the other side.

Potter definitely didnt transition to Up and Out. His was very much an old school Up and In structure which worked for us in some games (Manly, Souths) but left us very exposed on the edges in others (Bulldogs game which we won is a great example just from memory).

Thats how I saw it all anyway.
Probably selectively thinking about finals (although i shouldnt) as well as the way our centres played, especially lawrence. but in general you're probably right.

i thought we played a bit more neutral under potter, but the tackles simply weren't sticking as well especially with injuries. he played that up and in at times like dogs but a sliding D in games like round 1 dragons:

''Everybody talks about their four brothers, we have 17 here so we don't really care about them."

southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 10:19 pm

innsaneink wrote:
southerntiger wrote:
pHyR3 wrote:we had to use an up and in under sheens because of our forward pack.

under potter he started to transition that up and out but JT has finished it off. Now that we can trust all our players to make tackles we dont have to shut down plays early on we can put faith in centres/wingers to make tackles and not play so compressed because we know our big boys can also make tackles.
Mate we didn't use Up and In under Sheens from my memory. We tended to wait for the ball players to come and then slid. Thats why our middle was constantly exposed. I agree Sheens tended to use Up and In in finals games or in big games when he wanted to pressure the other side.

Potter definitely didnt transition to Up and Out. His was very much an old school Up and In structure which worked for us in some games (Manly, Souths) but left us very exposed on the edges in others (Bulldogs game which we won is a great example just from memory).

Thats how I saw it all anyway.
Yep, big games against the good teams, we focused on D at the expense of our attack...we bustled and frustrated teams - occasionally....maybe it was the surprise element, but i recall it working very well
Agreed. Probably wouldnt have worked if we used it consistently.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

Post Reply