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?

Whose playbooks?

This is not always as it seems. I attended a seminar with Tony Smith (and yes I have played and have been coaching for twelve years) and he stated that Warrington do not practice attacking set plays as he trusts the players to solve the problem of how to score on the field and to play what they see. However, this is an elite, experienced group of players so it does make it easier to allow that to happen. When dealing with less talented players a set move or even a full scripted set of six (for an example an exit set) might be needed.

The one thing that is utterly rigid in execution is the defensive structure.

I know what was said and I read your original post. More evasion.

Is that relevant?
Northampton RL, although most of it knicked from a combination of Broncos, Keighley, Whitehaven and Hull KR.

So you didnt write them?

But I assume you have read them?

So in an ' exit ' , ' safety ' , ' break out from line ' set what specific instructions do you give to your half backs/full back/hooker and loose forward?

So then, Warrington v Huddersfield.......what was people's thoughts on the game ?

The Giants tried to win, but failed, and Clarkey talked bollox