Tony Ward; Drop the Flankers!

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

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.

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

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

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!

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

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

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'

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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

We seem to be the last bastion of the small player.

Check out the size diff between our U20s and the English U20s
They aren't all beasts, but they're certainly going down the road 6ft+ backline where possible.

Wales have long established the preference for giants under Gatland.
The guys in the backline for all the Tri-Nations teams are huge
France is rapidly becoming a nation of flat-track boshers
Even Scotland are going down that route with guys like Hogg, Maitland and Visser

sydthebeat wrote: »

The game isn't broken.

This is one of the biggest over reactions EVER to us matching a physical team with physicality.

Some people have the opinion the game is indeed broken. Others have an opinion the game is fine. I and many others are not simply basing it on one game.
My reasoning about why the game is broken is:
- The level of concussion/injury in the game is in my opinion unsafe. In my opinion a game less based on power and size is safer. Don't ask me to prove that but I believe the bigger collissions is leading to more injuries/concussions. The recent study which correlated concussion increase with increased reporting of concussion was rejected by an expert from the medical field who said it was down to bigger collissions.
- Most coaches/players now sacrifice agility in the backs for power and size. Basic sports science shows someone adding on a lot of upper body mass or someone who is tall will not have the physical capability of multiple quick changes of direction. Straight line speed is all they have. A single side step is nothing earth shattering, Williams, Robinson and ODriscoll were capable of multiple changes of direction with the ball in hand.
- The game has become very predictable in terms of players simply going to ground in order to recycle posession.
- The 2000 - 2007 six nations had far more tries than 2008 - 2014. 2014 was decent at 61 tries, but 2015 I think will come in very low.

The_Captain wrote: »

We seem to be the last bastion of the small player.

Check out the size diff between our U20s and the English U20s
They aren't all beasts, but they're certainly going down the road 6ft+ backline where possible.

Wales have long established the preference for giants under Gatland.
The guys in the backline for all the Tri-Nations teams are huge
France is rapidly becoming a nation of flat-track boshers
Even Scotland are going down that route with guys like Hogg, Maitland and Visser

Can't agree with you there, France have Bastereaud and that monster of a Saffer Full back but Fofana, Tomas and Huget are not Bosh merchants by any measure. Nor are Hogg or Visser* both whom attacked the space all day on Sunday.








*even though he can only run in a straight line really.

any way of getting rid of WARD from the media?