Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Dual Playmakers - Bluster or Essential?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umaga&#039;s Witness" data-source="post: 977546" data-attributes="member: 65365"><p>I guess, in terms of styles, accurate rush defence and physicality have won out. Therefore we could see player selections prioritising who is better at these facets. But the other styles could have won, on a different day. It's just more difficult to have that day in a pressure situation when your style relies on creativity, and that pressure magnifies when you are behind. I wouldn't be surprised if a team with resources, like England, throws masses of resource into the psychological side of things. At the end of the day if every team played the same style some teams would have serious advantages Based on the players they have available. Think if everyone tried playing springbok style rugby. I can see england and New Zealand being able to compete if they focused hard on that style but the springboks would still be odds on favourites. </p><p></p><p>Some teams will have more playmaking than others, but all teams will at least have some. And I would think it's always been the case that you can't rely on one person making all your plays. But there are a range of options to increase overall playmaking. To me it makes sense to base your style on the players you have got. </p><p></p><p>On attack you will continue to need, as examples,, hard runners (players who can make it over the advantage line on their own), linebreakers (players who can get through the line), finishers (people who are fast and or agile enough to take overlap opportunities and win one on ones), and playmakers</p><p></p><p>Where you get your playmaking from depends on where you are getting the other attributes you need. </p><p></p><p>England has Farrell because Tuilagi offers little, and Daly because their wingers are no more than finishers and kick chasers.</p><p></p><p>South Africa have faf making more play than your average 9, and willie Le roux.</p><p></p><p>wales have Williams and rely on Adams getting involved plus Gareth's running game to keep the defence guessing, Keeping the defence from being able to focus in on and shut down the playMakers. But yeah they are hardly a playmaking team. </p><p></p><p>Ireland at top form have Murray making a lot of play and rely on being incredibly accurate with their plans. They have been less effective when Not firing on all cylinders or not at full strength, so I'd think they will be looking for playmakers in the future, probably giving ringrose a bigger role.</p><p></p><p>New Zealand like to make play; they will always have plenty Of natural playmakers throughout the backline, but I could definitely see more focus on big ball runners with new coaches. Gatland would probably start Laumape. </p><p></p><p>something like that anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umaga's Witness, post: 977546, member: 65365"] I guess, in terms of styles, accurate rush defence and physicality have won out. Therefore we could see player selections prioritising who is better at these facets. But the other styles could have won, on a different day. It’s just more difficult to have that day in a pressure situation when your style relies on creativity, and that pressure magnifies when you are behind. I wouldn’t be surprised if a team with resources, like England, throws masses of resource into the psychological side of things. At the end of the day if every team played the same style some teams would have serious advantages Based on the players they have available. Think if everyone tried playing springbok style rugby. I can see england and New Zealand being able to compete if they focused hard on that style but the springboks would still be odds on favourites. Some teams will have more playmaking than others, but all teams will at least have some. And I would think it’s always been the case that you can’t rely on one person making all your plays. But there are a range of options to increase overall playmaking. To me it makes sense to base your style on the players you have got. On attack you will continue to need, as examples,, hard runners (players who can make it over the advantage line on their own), linebreakers (players who can get through the line), finishers (people who are fast and or agile enough to take overlap opportunities and win one on ones), and playmakers Where you get your playmaking from depends on where you are getting the other attributes you need. England has Farrell because Tuilagi offers little, and Daly because their wingers are no more than finishers and kick chasers. South Africa have faf making more play than your average 9, and willie Le roux. wales have Williams and rely on Adams getting involved plus Gareth’s running game to keep the defence guessing, Keeping the defence from being able to focus in on and shut down the playMakers. But yeah they are hardly a playmaking team. Ireland at top form have Murray making a lot of play and rely on being incredibly accurate with their plans. They have been less effective when Not firing on all cylinders or not at full strength, so I’d think they will be looking for playmakers in the future, probably giving ringrose a bigger role. New Zealand like to make play; they will always have plenty Of natural playmakers throughout the backline, but I could definitely see more focus on big ball runners with new coaches. Gatland would probably start Laumape. something like that anyway. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Dual Playmakers - Bluster or Essential?
Top