Tony Ward; Drop the Flankers!

ye cause there are no big hits in Rugby League.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.