Position Position Position

[bigsiro]

In my opinion, Rugby League backline positions have become over-defined and totally inflexible. I find it just ridiculous how rigidly (and blindly) accepted the conventional positional structure in Rugby League is adhered to. Isn't it time we challenged it?

In soccer, the accepted standard team formation is 4-4-2, but this doesn't mean that every soccer team starts with 4 midfielders. They can start with any permutation they want. Why can't we?

Is there any rule that states that there has to be 1 fullback, 2 wingers and 2 centres?

Now go with me here for a minute; I actually think that playing 2 roving fullbacks at different points in the game might actually work. Imagine the Roosters with Mini + RTS both back there? Or the Broncos with Barba + Hoffman? It's just danger everywhere, all the time.

On this topic of positions; doesn't it simply defy logic that NSW may be picking an out-of-form player like Ryan Hoffman only because conventional standards suggest we need 2 second-rowers? Unless we have a gun second-rower why not just forget about doubling-up on second rowers and double-up on fullbacks instead? Put Hayne and Dugan there together! QLD won't know how to handle it!

Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I say think outside the square.

 

[Peaches]

Well in some teams the five-eight plays as a second fullback and in other teams halves are very much split by the side of the field. Some teams use a more mobile lock while others pick almost an extra prop.

There are some differences but I think you'll find it's so rigid nowadays because of an importance of team structure to defense. An ad-lib style of gameplay can beat those structured defenses when it sticks. I think the game was that slow for a while that structure and set plays was deemed the only way through it.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_

 

[jirskyr]

I hear what you are saying bigsiro, I would guess two things:

1) Variations have already been tried in training / opposed sessions or trials, and discarded due to not working.

2) That weekly NRL games are not really the way to test out radical theories. Teams are expected to compete and win each and every game, less experiment.

If we consider this in terms of evolution, because of the constant competition between teams, I would argue we are constantly seeing variations and permutations that are tested each week - most of these subtle rather than huge. As each variation is tested, the successful ones are kept and the unsuccessful discarded. Other teams then copy the changes and / or develop new strategies to undermine the changes.

The net result is that the successful techniques are retained and ever so gradually refined, but rarely are they radically overhauled.

For example, Ricky Stuart introduced the umbrella defence in his Roosters teams of early 2000s, which initially proved very successful. Then teams figured out to spread the ball early as a counter. Hasler reintroduced forwards in the backline as distributors, which to some extent has been retained, although they tend not to hit the advantage line anymore because most teams have good line speed as a counter.

I think we only see a big shift in the team paradigm when the underlying rules change. In the wild, you don't see massive upheaval to the ecosystem / biological order unless some major event changes the fundamental structure that drove the original evolution. So when the NRL announces a change to rules, that is when we see the teams experiment to find a best practice. It has already happened in 2014 with the outlawing of below-knee 3rd man tackles and 7-tackle counts for dead kicks.

That all being said, the teams are probably not as rigid and over-defined as you may feel. It might seem that way week-to-week, but you don't have to look back far in the records to see how quickly the game evolves. Teams in 2004 are not like teams in 2014, nor are 1994 or 1984 the same.

Sure, every team runs the "fullback 2nd man" backline play right now, but I am sure it will eventually fall out of favour or be modified, and the game will change again.

 

[bigsiro]

Thanks guys. I am pleased that there were serious responses to the topic. jirskyr,your considered response made me rethink my position. Great stuff.

But then, the NSW team was named with Ryan Hoffman being picked. It's no secret that NSW clearly do not have any real good second-row stocks to choose from, so clearly he was picked by default - as a position "filler".

And this is where I draw the line.

Personally, I'd have picked another playmaker / dynamic back like Mansour or Dugan over Hoffman. While this wouldn't fit with conventional position standards I really think that in this particular case it would have made NSW a better team.

 

[yeti]

Interesting post bigsiro. When reading Jirskyr's response, I was thinking "that the more things change, the more they stay the same". The umbrella defence that was mentioned in that response was actually used by some teams back in the '70s and '80s in an attempt to 'cut off' the quick moving backline plays. It seemed to pretty much disappear for a period with the 'sliding defence' coming into favour. And now it is back again to a point. But I like your idea of actually changing the entire makeup of the team in certain circumstances. It bears consideration.

 

[supercoach]

Ever since I began watching the game, their has been a coach who has gone in a different direction, had success and the rest follow. Big Jack Gibson, introduced weights into the training program,the bomb among many other very smart tactics, Warren Ryan than introduced the umbrella defense, Gus Gould than stamped his mark on the game along with Bennett, than Bellamy introduced the wrestle.

Their will be another coach to change the direction of the game but at present most are just playing follow the leader, its safer and it is easier. The stakes are always high when you start coming from left field, but look at Sheens in 2005, went against all the rules and picked a smallish mobile team that would attack from anywhere.

Not sure if I totally agree with Big Siros plan, but I do like the idea that you have to challenge what is considered normal if you really want success.

 

[cqtiger]

The good coaches put strategies in to compliment their team's strengths and cover their weaknesses.

Most teams have 3 fullbacks at times throughout a game (wingers dropping back on the fifth tackle).

Why not go back to the old fashioned roving lock forward ala Ron Coote (a second fullback in defence). Basically, it's because of the modern day compressed defences - brought about because of the strong, fit, mobile forwards that need 2 & 3 men in the tackle, all of the time. Oh and to slow down the ruck.

Back in the 50's there was a French fullback who refused to tackle anyone because he thought that was his forwards job!

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_