A lot has been said about Huddersfield's performance yesterday but what I liked best about it was it felt like 'old fashioned' rugby to me

Now, my baptism in Rugby League was 1985 so I don't mean older than that but there was a lot in the performance that reminded me of rugby in the 80's and 90's… good hard forward play with props looking to drive hard and not simply 'find their fronts in contact', some really innovative set plays including run arounds and kicks on the first tackle and a general attitude to rugby that the team that wants it more and plays toughest will win

I know they have been criticised this year for the grapple but I have to say I am beginning to enjoy watching Huddersfield play more than any other team in Super League

Huddersfield are given a bad press. Their attacking play was far more inventive and exciting than Saints, they obviously work their socks off in training on the attacking moves.

Their holding down and niggling at the play the ball is a tactic that makes them almost impossible to beat despite not having super talented players. I can understand why they do it and it's up to the referees to stop that, you can't blame the Giants for it. They stopped Saints getting any go forward in the semi final. Weak refereeing and clever tactics by Huddersfield. The RFL have got to reverse the new interpretations which are eliminating quick play the balls from the sport. All this "Hold, stand, wait, hold, go" stuff is ridiculous.

Surely quick play the balls encourage scooting to gain metres. Slower PTBs encourage better skills in breaking down defences.

I feel that it's a chicken and egg situation - the inventive attacking play is a direct result of a relatively 'slow' game with a lot of bodies in the ruck... you need to be inventive to break down a set defence

Saints have been by some distance the best attacking side in the country for the last decade but that has been based primarily on a fast play the ball and the go forward of Cunningham, Roby et al - just look at Graham, a cracking prop with a big engine but he is playing for a fast play the ball 90% of the time rather than a line break

Hey, I'm not criticising - I think its great that we can have sides playing each other with different tactics and game plans, it makes for a far more entertaining sport

Holding down and niggling is how Leeds and Saints have dominated other teams in the past, its how teams win in Super League and the NRL.

The difference is Saints and Leeds in the past are the only ones to get the timing right (and of course Bradford and Wigan in their day), now it seems Huddersfield have just about got the timing right to avoid the refs whistle.

On the back of that they add a massive work ethic and no small ammount of flair in attack.

That's not true. It was their speed and numbers in defence that made them very difficult to beat, this restricted Saints' play for most of the match. However this didn't make them impossible to beat, the numbers they were committing made them vulnerable out wide. I'm pretty sure it was Long who pointed this out when interviewed during the match saying that Saints needed more depth to get round the Huddersfield defence.

That's only in the last couple of seasons, we used to have pacey, skilful backs who could unlock any defence whether it was set or not. Some of the moves we put together in the Millward era were simply breathtaking. We also sometimes got 70 put on us.

Point taken - maybe should have said last 3 - 4 years

Hudds defended really well. Saints definitely missed Long, as they had few inventive ideas yesterday - Hudss did produce the best attacking moves, too.

That is absolute nonsense. When have Saints ever held down and slowed things down as a tactic? We conceded the least amount of penalties last season I'm sure and if anything at time we were too disciplined under Anderson.

As one of the commentators said in the middle of the game hudds defence was what shut saints down. They quickly got up in the middle of the field limiting Eastmond's options so they did not make much ground. On the occasion that hudds were lazy and gave Eastmond time to pick an option saints were able to get the ball to the wings and they were able to make alot of ground and some resulting in tries.

Judging by the way they've been caned in the penalty counts this season, I would suggest Leeds are no longer "getting it right" under McLennan.

Wasn't the need for a slower play the ball something people were clammering for after the World Cup debacle, where the interpretation of the Aussie refs was hammered by some on here?

Not giving people the opportunity to "pinch" cheap yards from dummy half and encouraging more structured attacking plays was part of the argument.

Leeds have used these tactics for donkeys.
Theres a defensive video on that famous site of them against the storm and most of the things highlighted Hudds have been criticised for this year.

You win NRL titles by holding down and niggling?

You win SL titles doing that?

WTF!


There is no doubt that the last couple of years the most effective teams in the NRL have been able to shut down the ball carrier with effecting tackling and usuing numbers in the tackle, thats a LOOOOONG want from "holding down and niggling"!


As for Super League, since when has effective defense been used at all? This is a competition where the word "Scoot" is a term used to describe a teams entire attacking structure!

Where players like Ali Lauitiiti, Keiron Cunningham, Rob Burrow, and the like punch holes through the line and yet their defensive problems never get tested because in SL defense is an after thought!




Now what you are getting in SL is just a short sighted dumb reaction by the RFL.

They thought they saw something in the NRL. They don't quite know what it was, but it had something to do with the play the ball area.

So now they let players lie in the ruck, hold players on the ground, and then allow the messy Super League play the ball to continue.

That is not an NRL thing. That is just a sign of how out of touch and poor English coaches and officials are at reading the modern day game, at interpreting cause and effect and applying it in the UK game.



Any time a governing body messes with the laws of the game, you have a problem. The game should change organically.

What works one year should be counteracted the next by an opponent and become a weakness. Thats how it works over here in the NRL. Someone comes up with an idea, they perfect it, everyone else tries it, changes it, makes it even better.

Then along comes a new idea to break down the previous idea.....the game in essence grows by its own means.

When the governing body steps in and interferes with this process, you get problems.


I've said for a very long time now, the first SL club that gets a really top class coach, that has players that honestly buy into his ways, his tactics and his methods, they will dominate in a way that will blow the socks off any Leeds or St Helens or Bradford fan.

If you took cutting edge tactics, top class coaching and applied it to one SL club, the rest would simply have to follow or they would fall so far behind it would be embarrassing.


Nathan Brown is a failed NRL coach. Had all the talent you could want at his disposal, had the money, had a huge junior base and was totally out of his depth. He got replaced and hell, his old club has looked like world beaters ever since.

Yet Brown has gone to SL and looks like some guru, as if he has come out of no where with these amazing ideas that no one has ever tried to put into practice

Hell, he's made Huddersfield look good!

This is a guy who was never accused of being a tactical genius, who was never accused of getting the best out of individuals or the team in general. A guy not known for getting the basics right, let alone the things that great coaches break down in their heads ever single day.

And look at the bloke, he is so far ahead of any coach in Super League its completely unfair.