: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:21 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Well imo RL is a simple game.

If you get enough firepower in the forwards, it will lay the foundation for the backs to shine.


Nobby realised this at Bradford and imo it still holds. Now executing this plan, especially under the artificial constraints of the CC is hard.


As RU if taken to the extreme could be won by a well drilled set of forwards on their own, so could RL.

Are our forwards, Wires or Bradfords well drilled? From what i have seen certainly not. I do not either think Bradford in there prime were either.

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:53 am  

I may just change my mind about you Jon, i have read 3 or 4 posts of yours today which i have agreed on but this one more than most.

Re: The Bradford "legacy" : Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:13 am  

jonh wrote:

I appreciate i leave myself open to criticism for posting such thoughts but here goes another one.

Rugby League being such a localised sport filled with basically players and coaches who know each other inside out and given the fact we as a sport seem to relish this fact rather than looking to grow our knowledge and embrace new thinking I guess it is inevitable that successfull players from successfull teams seem to at least be given a shot at coaching.

In the John Monie book he lists or at least the forward list the number of players that have gone on to coach at the top level who played under Monie.

I am a huge believer in the theory that you are a product of your environment, and i think that the Bradford Legacy is very visable.

Wigan, Warrington and Bradford themselves all have coaches at all levels that did there apprenticships or were involved in the successfull period at Bradford, and all these team continue to falter to decieve despite signing on paper quality players.

The skill level of the 3 teams highlighted is poor and rather the emphasis is on the physical side of things. Wire look a huge side this year, having taken on the Bradford Reserve conditioner at the end of last year with Jimmy Lowes.

Wigan have Noble and Foreshaw who cut there teeth in the Bradford era of success/laying the foundations of success, and Bradford themselves have McNamarra and another conditioning coach who came through the same system.

The teams on paper are far superior to the performances on the field, they all play a very basic game plan, and rely on an individual spark to fire them.

I think the Brian Smith and Bradford legacy is evident today and harming the 3 teams in question.

I would also add i do not think Brian Smith is a poor coach, he simply identified a way for the Bradford team to succeed and played to it, he is not limited to this coaching style but those who learned the game under the systems and in the environment he created are.

Well reasoned and something I have been talking today about, well similar lines anyway. Primarily about coaches being fast-tracked from successful teams and not having served apprentiships looking after various teams under various head coaches, regimes etc.

It's all too easy to install a 'fan favourite' or a household name and win some quick brownie points with the fans, but I think a coach needs to have served a rounded apprenticeship, be a student of the game and basically earned his shot at the big time. Cullen, Betts, Powell, McNamara, Lowes, Harrison have all been fast tracked into the (caretaker) head coach role and I think in each case have been exposed, and were not ready for the task. (I will concede that it's a moot point re Nobby in this group, but imho the root of the problems with us, which are a different thread are much deeper than one coach)

This is the real reason we are so very far behind the Roo's, no progressive thinkers and key coaches in the game.

Re: xBrettKennyx... Yes RL is a simple(ish) concept and yes the platform has to be laid in the forwards, as an old coach used to say, the fatties have to do the work so the posers can score their tries and look good.

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:07 am  

Look at the Bradford board it could be a carbon copy of this, complaints about boring negative rugby poor skills basic errors etc etc etc.

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:46 am  

You make some good points jonh and it can be no coincidence. All of these teams seem to make very basic errors and seem to try to play a style of rugby that doesnt even work. They try and play a forwards based game but their packs usually get dominated by the opposition. The game has changed and these teams forwards just look too cumbersome and slow.

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:52 am  

McDermott has said this year it is his team and will reflect his style of play. against manly they threw the ball around a friendly accepted, against cas we went up the middle.

He has said he is going to play an expansive game- lets see. The team certainly isnt built around a Bulls mentality of the big 4 props thats for sure. Mac coached a Leeds I believe not the Bulls.

Not coming down today Alex BP?

: Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:48 pm  

Simmy wrote:

You make some good points jonh and it can be no coincidence. All of these teams seem to make very basic errors and seem to try to play a style of rugby that doesnt even work. They try and play a forwards based game but their packs usually get dominated by the opposition. The game has changed and these teams forwards just look too cumbersome and slow.

I think this is a key point. When Bradford were in there pomp the skill level was generally centred around the 3 players, 6, 7 and 6. While the other players were not dummies they certainly were not highly skilled players, i wonder if the lack of skills coaching is something that they have brought with them.

Re: The Bradford "legacy" : Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:52 pm  

jonh wrote:

I appreciate i leave myself open to criticism for posting such thoughts but here goes another one.

Rugby League being such a localised sport filled with basically players and coaches who know each other inside out and given the fact we as a sport seem to relish this fact rather than looking to grow our knowledge and embrace new thinking I guess it is inevitable that successfull players from successfull teams seem to at least be given a shot at coaching.

In the John Monie book he lists or at least the forward list the number of players that have gone on to coach at the top level who played under Monie.

I am a huge believer in the theory that you are a product of your environment, and i think that the Bradford Legacy is very visable.

Wigan, Warrington and Bradford themselves all have coaches at all levels that did there apprenticships or were involved in the successfull period at Bradford, and all these team continue to falter to decieve despite signing on paper quality players.

The skill level of the 3 teams highlighted is poor and rather the emphasis is on the physical side of things. Wire look a huge side this year, having taken on the Bradford Reserve conditioner at the end of last year with Jimmy Lowes.

Wigan have Noble and Foreshaw who cut there teeth in the Bradford era of success/laying the foundations of success, and Bradford themselves have McNamarra and another conditioning coach who came through the same system.

The teams on paper are far superior to the performances on the field, they all play a very basic game plan, and rely on an individual spark to fire them.

I think the Brian Smith and Bradford legacy is evident today and harming the 3 teams in question.

I would also add i do not think Brian Smith is a poor coach, he simply identified a way for the Bradford team to succeed and played to it, he is not limited to this coaching style but those who learned the game under the systems and in the environment he created are.

Great analysis that, never thought about it like that.

[Bullseye]

: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:35 pm  

jonh wrote:

Look at the Bradford board it could be a carbon copy of this, complaints about boring negative rugby poor skills basic errors etc etc etc.

Quite. When McNamara came in there was a lot of talk about us playing a more entertaining and expansive style of rugby. If anything we're duller now than ever.

rl : Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:34 am  

Very good post.
Thought Bradford were entertaining when they had Henry and Robbie at half back.
We have become more entertaining this year. Against Wakey we were awful. Played ok at Hull and played good rugby v Cas.
With the win at Quins all our tries came from the backs.
How many tries have been scored by forwards compared to the backs?
Last two games Carmont & Ainscough have scored five tries between them I think.
Agree though with Jonh's post but had just got the feeling we were turning away from that style this year.