Just noticed, glad you agree then

The priority of a losing tean IS to score

You almost start getting to say something sensible Starbug, then revert back to the likes of

which is just as wrong as saying Wigan is in France.
Sets might hope to score, but plenty of sets are run without the intention of a score.

There have been some posters who understand the game offer some good insights for you. Not sure why you continue to reject the learning opportunity.

Going around in circles this now

You clearly can't read, because, A- you've made that up, and B- you keep avoiding these questions:

- Have you ever played (or coached)?

- Do you think "every set starts with an attempt to score", or that the goal of some sets is safety, territory and to get to the kick?

- Do you think teams make up their plays and sets on the spot, or have scripted, oft-practised sets and plays (you're the one who said this surprised you!)?

seventeen pages and the p!ssing contest still continues.

Maybe you should all go out get tanked up and have a fight to assert your masculine superiority.

I rest my case M lud

You have asked them? , well done, that was quick

Just a point, it is in the coaches and pundits own interests to make the game ' sound ' as complicated as possible , its what keeps them in a job, Paul Cullen is a prime example of talking complete rubbish, if that is what he was like in the changing room, no wonder Warrington were crap when he was there

You see the same in football , it is finally changing with the likes of Gary Neville coming in and not disecting individual plays, Andy Gray was a complete moron at it

Talking bollox keeps people in a job , and some people swallow that bollox without openng their eyes and minds, ever heard of the Emporers New clothes, well thats what you are looking at

Wow, I thought I'd seen stupid on these boards...and then there's Starbug.

What's your opinion DG? Do you believe teams run every play on every set with the aim to score?

Now you know that isnt what I said

I said at the start of every set the intention is to score, yes by the end of the set then the decision might well change and the option to get the best territorial advantage will be taken

Dont lose credibility by making up what suits your argument

OK...I can change it to say "every set" rather than "every play"
If you were here, we'd go through a few playbooks.

Wrong.

I attended a closed coaching seminar with a current top SL coach about 3 weeks ago. He showed us how he uses video footage to examine and dissect plays
...which is not the same as your claim that "every set starts with an attempt to score", which is patently wrong. Scoring is part of the overall game plan, as is defence. But it comes on the back of successful sets, not all of which are aimed at scoring.


Anyway, will you ever answer these questions or continue to embarrass yourself?:
- Have you ever played (or coached)?

- Do you think "every set starts with an attempt to score", or that the goal of some sets is safety, territory and to get to the kick?

- Do you think teams make up their plays and sets on the spot, or have scripted, oft-practised sets and plays?

I find it curious how you responded to my post, but then a page later you've decided to come back and respond to it again.

I have nothing more to add to my original post. Every top level coach and player would disagree with you. Do you know more than them?

I'm not really sure why you keep bringing the commentators into it, i watch the sky games without commentary due to eddie and stevo. Not really sure what your obesession with them appearing clever is. No one is trying to appear clever, but the game isn't as simple as, every set is played with the intention to score.

I'm not sure whether you realised the stupidity of your argument some time back but have doggedly persisted and evaded to try and save your pride or whether you really are that simple. I think that will remain a mystery.

This line of discussion started because of a comment by a commentator/pundit, so if you didnt hear it, and it would seem you didnt read my initial post, you havent a clue what you are arguing about

Not very clever are you?