|
|
|
Junior Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/08/2008 21:07:33
Posts: 14,
Visits: 74
|
|
| The concept of it not being important for a winger to tackle sounds like nonsense! What is he supposed to do when his opposite number is running at him lay out a welcome mat? I thought the back three worked as a defensive team? Where does this leave your team?I take it your Wingers can't cover Fullback or centre?
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 17/01/2012 20:00:07
Posts: 213,
Visits: 505
|
|
Stepping back from the detail of the debate for a minute. I see tackling as a core individual skill in either code, alongside catching, passing and running lines/agility etc (you might add kicking). All players need to be at least proficient in these 4 areas. These are the foundations upon which all rugby is built. There is no point in trying to play this system, these tactics or that if your players do not have the basic skills to enable them to execute. If you ignore any of these basics, you are in trouble.
Of course one can argue that this player or that player does more of this than that, for me it misses the point - I want all players good at the core skills. They should have been working on tackling from an early age, just as they have done with handling skills and running - it should not be an issue when they get to U16s or U18s and above IF the coaches have been doing their job.
Dan is right about the mental aspect of tackling - some will enjoy the "biff" more than others. However, with good coaching these things can be improved. Philip rightly rails at the old fashioned "it's all about guts...grrrr" attitude to tackling. It is a technique like any other. Coach Tom Bass notes "The art of good tackling has been described as 70% desire, 30% technique. This may be true but if a player, especially a young player, does not learn correct tackling techniques, he may increase his natural fear of contact, thus automatically decreasing his desire. Proper tackling skills must be taught slowly, with the initial emphasis on proper body position and not the force of the hit." He goes on to say "Knowledge of proper tackling technique is one of the greatest assets in helping a player overcome his natural fear of injury. It will give the player the desire and determination to take on ball carriers..." Simple - if a player is confident in his ability to execute a tackle he will approach the tackle with more confidence and commitment. If experience has shown him that with correct technique he does not suffer injury he will be more confident still. Correct technique should not only be effective but should minimise the risks of injury to the tackler. It is up to coaches to make sure they are up to date with best practice in this area. What was done in the past is no guide - and probably wrong. There is a still in yesterday's Sunday Times from a Culcutta Cup game in which Dean Richards is demonstrating some pretty wretched tackling technique. It was an amateur game then, times have changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 16/03/2009 14:10:05
Posts: 15,
Visits: 25
|
|
This idea of splitting according to Defensive capabilities comes from Gridiron Football, where the primary split is Offense Defense and not Forwards Backs. Now obviously its got some complications in Rugby, but it is not an off the cuff concept, it is a key area. I am pleased to say that over the last five years we have seen many teams adopting these techniques.
Of course its important that everyone tackles and we all have a good attitude, but its MORE important that 6.12, 7, 3,1, and 10 tackle in that order.
Once you accept this principle it effects everything down the line, its takes me 300 pages to explain a fully integrated systsystemu can download copy at www.ironrugby.com
Start with this:
The physical skill set for 1,3,6,7,10,12,13 is very similar - under 6 foot over 90 kgs. So we would be training them in a squad. In particular they would be doing more gym that the rest and should do it together. So like your backs run in a Squad passing the ball at pratice and forwards go off and practice lineouts and scrums, the Defensive Squad must have specialist training together. While they are doing that, link men 4,5,8,9 will be practicing passing and offloading skills. 2,11,14,15 are your runners and they will be practicing handoffs and hard aggressive running techniqies.
So already this kind of thinking is already effecting our offense. We are going to use specialist runners to carry the ball. Once a runner gets the ball he does not pass it again. He runs until they stop him. Very few people can actually make the gain line penetration. It is up to us to get the ball to the specialists. IN the offense teh Defensive Sqaud acts as littel more than sandbags, focusing on clean ign adn trying to get in as many cheap shots as possible.
We rest on Offense and up the ante on Defense. This is what makes possession so important. While we have the ball very few of us can cause major headaches for their whoel team. Its an economy of motion. When we are on Defense there is an urgency to reverse teh sitaution from hurting us to us hurting them.
The best example of this kind of play out there is the All Blacks. They may not conciously know it, but effectively they play like this. Small Props, Short Flanks, Big Centres.
Philip Copeman
www.ironrugby.com
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/08/2008 21:07:33
Posts: 14,
Visits: 74
|
|
| I disagree with a lot of what you say.Sure use techniques and principles adapted from other sports but you talk about the defence and attack being split, well thats ok in gridiron because the game stops and you actually swap teams. Rugby is more fluid and players have to do both. As for the skill set for the players you mentioned, under 6', why? Carl Heyman and Andrew Sheridan shouldn't be playing prop according to you. How many quality centres are over 6' too, nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 17/01/2012 20:00:07
Posts: 213,
Visits: 505
|
|
James, I think you misunderstand Philip somewhat. As I read it, Philip recognises the fluid nature of rugby and the fact that one cannot swap teams when in attack or defense. All he is doing is suggesting A way of playing and structuring a team. Noticing the fact that certain positions do more tackling than others has lead him to propose working on those players so as to be able to create key defenders who are exceptionally well conditioned, explosive, destructive defenders. That is not to say that others will not do defense, that they will is inevitable. It is just that one tries to organise the defense such that the best hitters do the bulk of the hitting. Not too crazy really. I am sure that many coaches, if they have a player who is a bit suspect defensively (but may be a key playmaker) do not organise their defense so that this guy finds himself in the key tackle making position all the time! So why not organise the defense to get your best hitters doing lots of hitting? One will not always be able to be so organised, that is taken as a given, but why not try?
Similarly in attack, it is just about being organised. Just as a league team works things so that they do not find the ball in a prop's hands on the 5th tackle when a down field kick is needed. I know it sounds a bit foreign but the idea of getting the ball to your best runners as often as poss is not that mad or indeed unfamiliar. I know if I had a Lomu or a Habana or a Robinson or a Rokothoko in my team I would like to get the ball to them quite a bit. Often when teams with such potent attackers in get the ball to them a lot the team prospers. Look at France in the 6 nations, if they get the ball to their back 3 a lot - watch out! Now you may say that the defense will know where the ball is going. Well if the moves work to get Habana a one on one with a defender - that's a problem for the defense. I know the way it is put may be unfamiliar but the idea of trying to organise things so that players do as much of what they are best at as possible is sensible and not as unfamiliar as first it might seem. After all teams seem to manage to get organised enough so that their best kicker is on hand to make clearance kicks most of the time.
As regards player sizes, these are ideals and relate to the system Philip describes, NOT to the way the All Blacks play or England play. It is not to say that a player could not be outside the range provided they can do the job within system one is using. If you do not need line out jumping ability in a certain position in a certain system, there is no need for a player in that position to be 6'8". Such height would probably hinder him but would not necessarily disqualify him if he could do the job needed. In league there is no need for really tall players but they still crop up from time to time - Eorl Crabtree is 198cm tall (prop, huddrsfield Giants).
|
|
|
|