Tony Ward; Drop the Flankers!

Losty Dublin

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/comment-analysis/tony-ward-move-to-13aside-only-way-rugby-can-avoid-slow-death-by-strangulation-30997751.html

Mr. Ward, in his wisdom, reckons that rugby has a problem with an over reliance on powerful players and a lack of skill based flair play as a whole. His solution? Cut down on two players from the pack to make more space on the park and open up the game again.

It sounds revolutionary but he hasn't gone very far in explaining this or indeed what the actual problem is in the first place. Has the game got a problem to address as regards brawn taking over? Has the flair player had his day and needs to be reinvented? Is Ward making a mountain out of a mythological molehill here or does World Rugby need to address the issue before it's too late for the game?

Opinions?

Thanks but no thanks Tony.

awec

Tony Ward should go watch rugby league. There's nothing revolutionary about removing 6 and 7, it's been done before.

Stheno

I was just reading that article and it didn't make much sense

total former

Yeah, move to 13-a-side. Maybe get rid of the scrum contest too.

And I'm sick of all these multiple-phase possessions, maybe let teams have possession for a set number of phases before they have to get rid of it?

justsomebloke

ye cause there are no big hits in Rugby League.

Dravokivich

Why not just get rid of half backs and make everyone on the team work for the ball, instead of it being handed to'em?

dub_skav

I heard somebody saying that last week, think it was on SKY. (Edit: Might have been Tony of course, but I generally turn over when he speaks)

They actually said Rugby is becoming too much like rugby league.........so we should drop the flankers

Thought it was hilarious.

These things go in cycles, somebody will badly expose a team of huge athletes with guile and skill and it will be back in vogue again.

Uno my Uno.

Its somewhat intuitive that players' improved fitness has had the effect of "shrinking" the field and reducing the available space for flair and extravagance. However I wonder if that is actually the case, I'd love to see a statistical break down of the number of tries scored and line breaks in this years 6N and the 5N of 25 years ago. I suspect they might not be significantly different.

As pointed out reducing the number of players was done many many years ago and look at the result, 26 massive and identical players running into each other over and over for 80 minutes.

jcon1913

Losty Dublin wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/comment-analysis/tony-ward-move-to-13aside-only-way-rugby-can-avoid-slow-death-by-strangulation-30997751.html

Mr. Ward, in his wisdom, reckons that rugby has a problem with an over reliance on powerful players and a lack of skill based flair play as a whole. His solution? Cut down on two players from the pack to make more space on the park and open up the game again.

It sounds revolutionary but he hasn't gone very far in explaining this or indeed what the actual problem is in the first place. Has the game got a problem to address as regards brawn taking over? Has the flair player had his day and needs to be reinvented? Is Ward making a mountain out of a mythological molehill here or does World Rugby need to address the issue before it's too late for the game?

Opinions?

If there were less players on the field there would be more space.

You only have to look at how bigger players are compared to 50/60 years ago to see that. For example the Leinster Schools teams combined weights are higher than the combined weights of the Grand Slam winning team from 1948.

It is a bit of a molehill, but it is one approach.

The_Captain

I get what he's going for, since French rugby is now pretty much this




But nothing is going to change as long as giants running into each other is more effective than skilful play.

Personally I think that as defences have become better, the chances of a small guy running through a gap is much lower, so now the most effective way to make ground is to have big guys running one-out hit ups to force their way over the gain line.

Awful to watch and it will produce more injuries

Macy0161

Removing flankers would make no extra space off a scrum - same number of backs. It also probably wouldn't change the physicality - the flankers would end up in the centre most likely!

I'm also not convinced two less players would automatically increase the available space - it's a bit simplistic imo. There's more merit in pushing back the defensive line from the hindmost foot at rucks and mauls imo and/or having an official to police the defensive offside line.

jcon1913

Macy0161 wrote: »

Removing flankers would make no extra space off a scrum - same number of backs. It also probably wouldn't change the physicality - the flankers would end up in the centre most likely!

I'm also not convinced two less players would automatically increase the available space - it's a bit simplistic imo. There's more merit in pushing back the defensive line from the hindmost foot at rucks and mauls imo and/or having an official to police the defensive offside line.

You have good points there, but usually IMHO there is plenty of space at the point when the ball comes out of the scrum, its in later phases that theres too many guys around getting from ruck to ruck. God be with the days when forwards walked from one scrum the the next!

Agreed that the policing of offside would make a huge difference, at the moment the only real punishment is that if you are up flat and borderline offside, and the attackers break through you are then faced with having to sprint back to make up lost ground, from an offside position. Refs dont police it much IMHO.

davegrohl48

People say it would resemble Rugby League but you wouldn't have to give up posession after six tackles.
I think the result would be:
- The forwards would get smaller to be able to cover more ground
- The backs would get smaller to be more agile
Example Jason Robinson, Christophe Dominici, Shane Williams would be very useful players in a game where there is more space.
More 9's/10's would have a genuine and agile running threat as there wouldn't be the extra coverage close to them at scrums/rucks/mauls.

razorblunt

We're getting closer to Sarcastaball aren't we?

errlloyd

Dunno why people are slamming Ward for saying what lots of others are thinking. The current game was designed for slow small fat people, it has changed, there is less space on the pitch. Then again, the surface is also better, the ball is easier to pass and kick and players should be better at all of those skills. I also think the two other games in the 6N this weekend had plenty of game breaking, it was just our game that was dour.

Uno my Uno.

I'm calling shenanigans on Tony Ward, I think he has a bad case of nostalgia not being as good as it used to be.

A quick comparison shows that...

1990 5 Nations: 27 tries scored an average of 1.35 tries per game

2014 6 Nations: 61 tries scored an average of 2.03 tries per game.

I know that tries scored doesn't equal amazing brilliance on the pitch but what it does indicate is that the game wasn't the dazzling, flowing master class of skill some people would like to suggest it was.

These stats show that contrary to Mr Ward's assertion, with the advent of professionalism in the last 25 years attack has improved significantly faster than defense with tries being scored almost twice as frequently now than they were in the amateur days.

TommyOM

If they just made the pitches bigger then there would be more space so quicker more skillful players would be preferred to big bruisers and it would reduce the muscle mass of the players as they would be required to cover great spaces.

If you can, see what happens if you take matches involving Italy out of the averages for the 6Nations (@ Uno my Uno).

Snickers Man

Rugby Union went down the inevitable path of morphing into rugby league 22 years ago when it changed the breakdown laws to the new "Use it or lose it" mentality.

Before 1993 if you took the ball into a ruck of maul and it didn't advance, the attacking team (ie the team that took the ball in to the breakdown) got the put in to the ensuing scrum. The defending team, however, could win a turnover by simply becoming the advancing team by pushing the maul backwards or, similar to today, driving the other team off the ball in the ruck. Then They would win the ensuing srcum if the ball failed to emerge.

What this meant was that teams were forced to commit forwards to the breakdown, whereas nowadays they just fan out along the back line with maybe one or two bodies left to contest the breakdown. THAT is what is closing off space across the pitch in today's game.

Solution: Bring back the old laws and let those who want to play rugby league bugger off to Lancashire and Sydney where they seem to like that sort of thing.

Oh and another thing: no need to adjust the scoring values to bring about a return in the supremacy of the try. In the 1930s and 40s when a try was worth three points and a dropped goal was worth four, tries accounted for far more of a teams points than anything else. The reason: the balls at the time were misshapen lumps of leather that resembled medicine balls caked with soap if the weather was at all moist.

Solution: Make today's balls less kickable. Maybe but a cork weight in the centre like a cricket ball thereby making it harder for kickers to dominate a match.

It's all been done before.

OldRio

errlloyd wrote: »

Dunno why people are slamming Ward for saying what lots of others are thinking. The current game was designed for slow small fat people, it has changed, there is less space on the pitch. Then again, the surface is also better, the ball is easier to pass and kick and players should be better at all of those skills. I also think the two other games in the 6N this weekend had plenty of game breaking, it was just our game that was dour.

Surely the current game was designed for all shapes and sizes. That's the beauty of it. I do agree it has changed now, but some wee fella with quick feet will be dancing through these heavyweights before long.

shuffol

TommyOM wrote: »

If they just made the pitches bigger then there would be more space so quicker more skillful players would be preferred to big bruisers and it would reduce the muscle mass of the players as they would be required to cover great spaces.

And build new stadiums while their at it.

TommyOM

shuffol wrote: »

And build new stadiums while their at it.

Nearly all stadiums have enough space to widen and lengthen the pitch

OldRio

TommyOM wrote: »

Nearly all stadiums have enough space to widen and lengthen the pitch

I'm not sure of that. I know Leicester's pitch didn't make the grade for the RWC 2015. Wasn't big enough.

Uno my Uno.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you can, see what happens if you take matches involving Italy out of the averages for the 6Nations (@ Uno my Uno).

I'm afraid i don't have the time for that! Besides I don't think Italy are skewing the figures because back in 1990 four and five try maulings of weaker teams like (ahem) Ireland or Wales were not uncommon.

sydthebeat

we have rugby 7's

we have rugby 10's

we have rugby league

we have tag rugby

we have rugby union


If you dont like one, go play another........

Losty Dublin

TommyOM wrote: »

Nearly all stadiums have enough space to widen and lengthen the pitch

I'd like them to try that in Donnybrook or Cardiff

galwaylad14

Macy0161 wrote: »

Removing flankers would make no extra space off a scrum - same number of backs. It also probably wouldn't change the physicality - the flankers would end up in the centre most likely!

I'm also not convinced two less players would automatically increase the available space - it's a bit simplistic imo. There's more merit in pushing back the defensive line from the hindmost foot at rucks and mauls imo and/or having an official to police the defensive offside line.

Well it would hardly result in less space would it?

Of course reducing the number of players on the field would increase space!

While I'm not sure about this idea I do think something needs to be done, the game isn't as exciting to watch as it was. It's all about just crashing it up over and over and then kicking the ball either for field position or a garryowen. We need to get the skill and flair back into it.

I saw one or 2 comments about the French style of play but we shouldn't be throwing stones from our glass house, in last weekends game France they had 6 times more offloads than us and only kicked half as much as we did, and they managed 2 clean line breaks to our zero.

Celly Smunt

Maybe we should totally eradicate the scrum and reset play everytime the ball hits the ground after a knock on.

Just think of the revenue that could be generated from advertising in between plays!

Maybe then we could introduce helmets like those clever Americans to stop concussions. In fact maybe complete body armour.

Uno my Uno.

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Well it would hardly result in less space would it?

Of course reducing the number of players on the field would increase space!

While I'm not sure about this idea I do think something needs to be done, the game isn't as exciting to watch as it was. It's all about just crashing it up over and over and then kicking the ball either for field position or a garryowen. We need to get the skill and flair back into it.

I saw one or 2 comments about the French style of play but we shouldn't be throwing stones from our glass house, in last weekends game France they had 6 times more offloads than us and only kicked half as much as we did, and they managed 2 clean line breaks to our zero.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the game, our match was dull on the weekend and we are playing conservative rugby at the moment but the England v Italy game was full of breaks and skill as was Scotland v Wales.

What's more is that for every time Phill Bennet or Tony Ward skipped through a defence we watched 40 minutes of 16 forwards lying on top of the ball trying to wrestle it off each other.

Back in t'old days it wasn't just Munster where it was considered a mortal sin to let let the ball get past 10 unless you were 15 points up with 10 minutes to go:P that was how the game was first intended to be played, a physical contest between teams based around rucks and mauls with plenty of kicking if you got into trouble.

irishbucsfan

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'd like them to try that in Donnybrook or Cardiff

Or Adams Park!

Oh wait....

davegrohl48

Reducing the game to 13 a side does not automatically mean we're headed towards rugby league or as someone also alluded to American football.
There have been more tries scored I would say since the advent of professionalism as you have a significant amount of hammerings of teams such as Italy/Scotland. Those games often gave you 7 or 8 tries in a single game.
If you want thrilling runs and passages of play look at:
- Jason Robinson
- Shane Williams
- Brian ODriscoll
Those players if they were starting out again would be struggling to establish themselves ahead of much bigger players.

sydthebeat

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

What's more is that for every time Phill Bennet or Tony Ward skipped through a defence we watched 40 minutes of 16 forwards lying on top of the ball trying to wrestle it off each other.

Back in t'old days it wasn't just Munster where it was considered a mortal sin to let let the ball get past 10 unless you were 15 points up with 10 minutes to go:P that was how the game was first intended to be played, a physical contest between teams based around rucks and mauls with plenty of kicking if you got into trouble.

totally agree.... the perception that the old days were all about fast players and flinging the ball around and scoring exciting tires is flawed.
I remember many very turgid games in the 5 nations through the 80s and 90's. You had teams like scotland who were famous for their forward ferocity than slinky backs.

i just did a quick calculation and took 3 years at random from the 5 nations and looked at average scores

1985 average 26.7
1987 average 31.2
1990 average 29.5

then look at the last 3 years of the 6 nations, and ive removed italy completely and only included results within the old 5 nations sides

2012 average 37.4
2013 average 37.0
2014 average 36.8

so the idea that the game isnt as exiting as it once was doesnt stack up with the score evidence... theres on average 1 try more scored now than there was in the 5 nations per game

Uno my Uno.

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Reducing the game to 13 a side does not automatically mean we're headed towards rugby league or as someone also alluded to American football.
There have been more tries scored I would say since the advent of professionalism as you have a significant amount of hammerings of teams such as Italy/Scotland. Those games often gave you 7 or 8 tries in a single game.
If you want thrilling runs and passages of play look at:
- Jason Robinson
- Shane Williams
- Brian ODriscoll
Those players if they were starting out again would be struggling to establish themselves ahead of much bigger players.

That actually isn't the case, Italy and Scotland don't get hammered half as often as people believe they do. Games where 7 or 8 tries are scored are exceptionally rare.

The Lost Sheep

Losty Dublin wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/comment-analysis/tony-ward-move-to-13aside-only-way-rugby-can-avoid-slow-death-by-strangulation-30997751.html

Mr. Ward, in his wisdom, reckons that rugby has a problem with an over reliance on powerful players and a lack of skill based flair play as a whole. His solution? Cut down on two players from the pack to make more space on the park and open up the game again.

It sounds revolutionary but he hasn't gone very far in explaining this or indeed what the actual problem is in the first place. Has the game got a problem to address as regards brawn taking over? Has the flair player had his day and needs to be reinvented? Is Ward making a mountain out of a mythological molehill here or does World Rugby need to address the issue before it's too late for the game?

Opinions?

Awful idea - as per usual with Ward's suggestions for improving the game. Of course he hasn't gone far in explaining what his issues are. He puts the same complaints in every year in his wishes for the year article but never actually expands on how he would actually change things.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Removing flankers would make no extra space off a scrum - same number of backs. It also probably wouldn't change the physicality - the flankers would end up in the centre most likely!

I'm also not convinced two less players would automatically increase the available space - it's a bit simplistic imo. There's more merit in pushing back the defensive line from the hindmost foot at rucks and mauls imo and/or having an official to police the defensive offside line.

yes it wouldn't change the physicality or make extra space.. How far would you push defensive lines back and there already is officials watching the offside line in the assistants, who at the top level are micced up to the referee and can make calls on offside etc

errlloyd wrote: »

Dunno why people are slamming Ward for saying what lots of others are thinking. The current game was designed for slow small fat people, it has changed, there is less space on the pitch. Then again, the surface is also better, the ball is easier to pass and kick and players should be better at all of those skills. I also think the two other games in the 6N this weekend had plenty of game breaking, it was just our game that was dour.

He makes a fair enough point but offers no real back up to why this should be done. How it should be done etc

TommyOM wrote: »

If they just made the pitches bigger then there would be more space so quicker more skillful players would be preferred to big bruisers and it would reduce the muscle mass of the players as they would be required to cover great spaces.

How would you make pitches bigger when space constraints would be an issue in a lot of places?
A rugby pitch should be as near as possible to a max of 144 metres long and 70 metres wide including the dead ball. the actual pitch can be a max of 100 metres. Many pitches are not at the max as it stands

davegrohl48

2000 - 2007 was quite healthy in terms of tries scored in the six nations each year high 60's, mid 70's.
After 2008 there was a big drop off.
2013 was pretty shocking at only 37 tries.
Last year was quite good at 61 tries I was surprised by that.

ectoraige

They should just invent a Shrink-O-Matic Ray-Gun and use it to shrink the players by 50%, would easily create more space on the pitch. Simples. If it also increased the pitch of their voice it would make for some hilarious post-match interviews too.

captbarnacles

Don't see what is wrong with the game at the moment. I think they have got it right in terms of balance between attacking and defending team. Scrums, rucks and lineouts can all be contested and won by the defending team.

Anyone who thinks the old days were full of exciting attacking rugby clearly never watched much rugby back then. Some of it was unwatchable it was so dull.

Tox56

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Well it would hardly result in less space would it?

Of course reducing the number of players on the field would increase space!

While I'm not sure about this idea I do think something needs to be done, the game isn't as exciting to watch as it was. It's all about just crashing it up over and over and then kicking the ball either for field position or a garryowen. We need to get the skill and flair back into it.

I saw one or 2 comments about the French style of play but we shouldn't be throwing stones from our glass house, in last weekends game France they had 6 times more offloads than us and only kicked half as much as we did, and they managed 2 clean line breaks to our zero.

There's a serious overreaction to our game last weekend here. You're basically saying the game as a whole needs to be fundamentally changed because Ireland played a relatively dull game at the weekend. England-Italy, Scotland-Wales, England-Wales, Scotland-Wales were all perfectly entertaining games

davegrohl48

Tox56 wrote: »

There's a serious overreaction to our game last weekend here. You're basically saying the game as a whole needs to be fundamentally changed because Ireland played a relatively dull game at the weekend. England-Italy, Scotland-Wales, England-Wales, Scotland-Wales were all perfectly entertaining games

He or she is not basically saying that. Neither was Tony Ward. Rugby was fairly dull in the 80s and early 90s. In the early 00s the championship had far better truly skilled runners and there were more tries scored. The kind of tries scored nowadays often resemble Marshawn Lynch running play beast mode touchdowns. Less often Brian ODriscoll/Jason Robinson type breakaways. It's not heresy to think current game needs a change.

sydthebeat

davegrohl48 wrote: »

It's not heresy to think current game coaching and selection of players needs a change.

FYP

davegrohl48

FYP n followed up by stating coaching n selection brings us back to the days of having Robsinsons/ODriscolls/Shane Williams in the game. Explain how they'd survive in the modern game of gigantic backs n tight defences?

dtpc191991

ectoraige wrote: »

They should just invent a Shrink-O-Matic Ray-Gun and use it to shrink the players by 50%, would easily create more space on the pitch. Simples. If it also increased the pitch of their voice it would make for some hilarious post-match interviews too.

Picturing Paul O'Connell with a high pitched squeaky voice has made my day. XD

mfceiling

I think we should...

Make the pitches 7 times bigger.

Make the games 2 times longer

Make the players a quarter the size

Make the ball 8 times heavier

Make the tries be worth 136 points

Make drop goals and penalties be minus 100

Make the crowds 50% women, 29% men, 48% children, 17% granny's and 72% Foreign National.

Make the National Anthems 23 times louder

Sorry what was Tony Ward's point again?

Neil3030

It's annoying how sport (rugby and probably to a greater extent soccer) has basically become a side show nowadays, whereby a platform is provided to just allow people complain about stuff. Also, we keep consuming a product (sports media) 99% of which gives us absolutely no meaningful utility whatsoever. If an economist on here wants to give me the rationale for this, I'm all ears!

total former

Neil3030 wrote: »

It's annoying how sport (rugby and probably to a greater extent soccer) has basically become a side show nowadays, whereby a platform is provided to just allow people complain about stuff. Also, we keep consuming a product (sports media) 99% of which gives us absolutely no meaningful utility whatsoever. If an economist on here wants to give me the rationale for this, I'm all ears!

We consume it so much because it is free and readily available. If we all had to go out and buy the newspaper to see what Tony Ward was saying, there wouldn't be half as much notice paid. If you can get something for free (and with no effort) you're going to gorge on it.

The drop off in quality is linked to quantity. Websites have to keep their traffic up so they have to publish any auld ****e to attract those clicks; quality and accuracy doesn't matter because no one reads past the first paragraph anymore, just get it written, send out a tweet and watch it snowball.

Braken

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Reducing the game to 13 a side does not automatically mean we're headed towards rugby league or as someone also alluded to American football.
There have been more tries scored I would say since the advent of professionalism as you have a significant amount of hammerings of teams such as Italy/Scotland. Those games often gave you 7 or 8 tries in a single game.
If you want thrilling runs and passages of play look at:
- Jason Robinson
- Shane Williams
- Brian ODriscoll
Those players if they were starting out again would be struggling to establish themselves ahead of much bigger players.

True..was speaking to a coach recently and he said it's coming to a situation where anyone less than 6ft will not be considered seriously for any position with a rugby career in mind

irishbucsfan

Braken wrote: »

True..was speaking to a coach recently and he said it's coming to a situation where anyone less than 6ft will not be considered seriously for any position with a rugby career in mind

Well Billy Dardis is 5' 10 and Cian Kelleher is 5' 8 so it seems the Leinster academy don't agree with him!

wittycynic

Very simple answer. Team weight limit. Fixes all of the problems without tinkering around with rules.

total former

wittycynic wrote: »

Very simple answer. Team weight limit. Fixes all of the problems without tinkering around with rules.

It's early so apologies if this is going over my head, but are you serious?

Akrasia

Here's another idea

15 players are 'in play' at any time but only 13 players are allowed on the pitch. Two of the players 'in play' are switched on and off depending on the plays/injuries/blood subs/concussions

The two 'hot sub' players can be brought on at any time by tagging with a player who comes off and the player that comes off can come back on by tagging with any other player on the pitch, so if there is a scrum, two backs can come off to allow a more powerful scrum, or if there is a lineout, the teams can switch their set-up to favour a driving maul or a running play

Given the amount of injuries and the amount of treatments players receive on the pitch, if a player is down receiving treatment, one of the two 'hot subs' can be brought on as soon as the medical team are on the pitch (no need to wait for a break in play to make the change) so that the team aren't at a disadvantage due to taking necessary precautions to protect their players welfare.

There would be all kinds of tactical scenarios that could mean a more varied game and more niches for different styles of players.

The normal substitutions would still be allowed, but once someone was subbed off, they couldn't be part of the 15 players who are 'in play'