That'd be Leeds well and truly fugged

Because the player with the ball may check his run or try to step/change direction etc before passing - in that case, you're running the risk of being in front of him when he wants to pass.

That extra 1 or 2 m can certainly help in such situations, as you can keep running full tilt without having to worry about overrunning him as much.



That's twice you've done this - I said a metre or two, and you've somehow doubled it to suit your argument. Will the next post be talking about 6-8m?



No, it also means the person receiving the ball can carry more momentum into the tackle as he's running at close to full tilt.

I pointed this out.

People who know how to run are up to basically full speed after 5m in a 100m race, rlfor examplerl. The derivative of the speed curve is much larger at small distances. The defensive line are already at or near to full speed by the time the ball comes out to the wing, so that extra metre or so doesn't really affect their momentum - but it makes a significant difference to the momentum of the winger, and that momentum can carry the winger further through tackles, and hence counter the slight loss of position.



Which is largely due to playing percentages, as I said. I never said it was a universal panacea, and you need players who are comfortable with the timing, but there's a time and a place for everything.



I don't follow you here, sorry. You said that you have less time to pass in a given situation, and it wasn't true.



They can play exactly the same pass - almost directly flat, if they wish. The difference is that the winger comes onto it at a greater pace, having timed his run. Which is not easy, just as I pointed out.



Where, exactly, should the winger be apart from behind his centre, running a support line? If the centre doesn't know his winger is running behind him in support, you have greater problems than whether he's an extra 1m back.



The passer can play exactly the same pass - like I said, flat if they so wish. But the wing comes onto it with more momentum.



You've been talking about the importance of seconds in the game, and now you decide that an extra 1/2 second or whatever to the passer makes no difference? Make your mind up.

'"

I can't be bothered to go through the entire post because we're just going round in circles with the argument, so I'll just save both of our times. I will maintain that I disagree with the majority of what your saying though for the reasons I've already said.

The whole argument for not dropping back the metre or two is based on giving the defence as little processing time as possible. It may give the attack less processing time, but that's what training and set moves are for.

There is very little extra you can do in attack with an extra metre or two space, but there is a lot more thought time you can have in defence.

I certainly disagree with the extra momentum you get over a metre or two being anywhere near significant enough to make up the extra yards lost. I would say the best way to break down a defence is to catch them off guard, which doing things quickly does (mis-timed tackles, etc.). Professional players, given time, should be able to tackle anyone.

There were some very talented players back then you know who were coached properly in the basics of running fast and passing into the "bread basket" of the receiver, not the basketball type passing you get today. Players could also pass equally as well to the left and the right in those days and from your comments I assume that you didn't witness play from that era because players could run pretty damned fast and still throw out perfect passes.

How, Wellsey, can a player lose "yards" by running from say, an extra metre behind?

At least you've stopped with the 6m nonsense when I spoke of 1 or 2.

I've pointed out that it can allow you to actually be running faster when you hit the ball, and that alone helps make up some of the potentially lost ground quite apart from additional momentum into the tackle.

Remember that I'm not the one speaking in absolutes, here - I've consistently noted that it's swings and roundabouts.



There's nothing stopping you doing things quickly by having the winger another 1 or 2m deeper. It's a matter of timing, like I've said - but it does give the winger a little more leeway to react if you try something other than driving into the defence on the same line you started to run, so I can't see how it negates catching the defence off guard.



And yet we see time and time again that they do not. They do, however, tend to miss more tackles if the person coming at them is moving faster. Because it's harder to take the player down.

Like I keep saying, it's not a global wonder tactic. But it can certainly be useful, despite your claims to the contrary.

I have seen some old games, and they are slower. Anyone who doesn't think so needs to look again.

Passes to the bread basket are not perfect passes. If you did a coaching course, you'd know that and also why they're not.

And you'd have to throw a ball pretty fast for momentum not to take it forward of the mark passed from if you were running at pace.

This to me just seems like another one of those "it was better in the old days" type comments, to me.

No, it just seems to me and probably others that you know best and wish to impose your view onto everyone else. You've seen a few "old games" and that makes you an expert on them does it? I may be an old timer but nowhere have I said that the game was better in the "old" days, you seem to put your own interpretation on what everyone else posts. Go back and watch some more old games and watch how deep the attacking line is and how fast the ball goes along the line without ever looking like a forward pass.

I am not saying that it was abetter game back then but you seem to imply that the modern game is the be-all and end-all which it certainly isn't.

I certainly don't "know best", but I do comment on what I do know.

Your comment on players being "coached properly" back then is what prompted my reply. That to me seems a "it was proper back then" type comment.

I know that a perfect pass isn't to the bread basket. A perfect pass is to the hands that are in front of the player because there is less time taken to adjust to make the next pass.

I know that players are full time now as opposed to the past, where they train more, are fitter and stronger than before and can do things that players in the past couldn't do physiologically. This, on top of better technology and investment into training techniques and sports practices.

I've seen a fair few old games. Not as many as the 60 years+ fans on here, but a fair few for a guy in his early 20s. I've seen how fast it goes along the line, which is not what I'm commenting on. It's more to do with how far forward they're moving at the time. Most of the passing moves I've seen in the old games were very static, which is why the ball wouldn't travel forward, which is what the basis of my argument is. I've also seen some old games where the ball travels forward due to momentum. when running down the wings ala today's game, so it did happen then also.

The game has moved on so much since the old days it is unreal.

From runners stood still, to runners running at half speed, at a defensive line that isn't moving. The game has moved on.

I'm not sure that's fair, he just has a strong opinion and isn't reticent about expressing it!

I think you're on safe ground in thinking that the modern players are, on average, stronger and better conditioned than the semi-pro days and that allows them to maintain the tempo in defence for longer. On top of that, I think the play the balls were referee'd differently, and the modern game has less messing about for right or wrong.

But I'm not convinced the modern player is [ifaster[/i or a better ball handler in such a significant way.

Very appreciative comments there for someone who has an opposing view. Makes a great change from the "I'm right, you're wrong, so we must hate each other and bicker" kind of attitude that is has become more than the norm on here.

I would say the modern player IS faster due to the training techniques, etc. But only faster in the body. Cognitive wise, and I wouldn't say there is much of a difference, if any. I don't think players can think faster now than they used to be able to. I think they just need to due to the increased speed of the game.
I also think that the majority of players are better ball handlers now than back in the day, but the standards of the best ball handlers is not that much different. It's just the worst players aren't as bad as they used to be, which means the best players don't look as good as they used to. I think this is one of the reasons why people constantly look back and think there were "better" teams in earlier days, when really it's just a case of the worst teams are getting better and making the best teams look poorer.

No probs - I have a sneaking suspicion that you're better equipped than I am to comment on many of the aspects we've discussed with authority.



While I know that the additional strength in a modern player can certainly add more power, which obviously helps speed in specific cases (look at the size of olympic sprinters, for example), I think the additional bulk may cut into that a bit.

I think "natural pace" may well be reasonably constant in the general sporting population, with only the very elite (who only run, nothing else) being significantly faster now than, say, 20 years ago. I certainly don't think the difference is as marked as it is with raw power and stamina, at least.



Seems fair enough to me - but I feel honour bound to mention the 5m rule at this point, even though defences are faster and better organised now.

Great argument this.
Im with Wellsy though 100%, im just not as good as explaining it
You dont have to have done a coaching course to realise the bread basket isnt where a ball should go! I figured that out by age 8

I wouldn't know if I was better equipped, but I have just done a PE degree which had a biomechanics part to it, which is why I'm very vocal in the forward pass/momentum argument. It also had an elite sports preparation and training module, but without being an elite athlete or being involved in an elite set-up, I can only know so much about that!


Seems fair enough, but I would certainly say that the slower players are faster than they used to be. The faster players may not be much faster, if at all, but the slower ones aren't as slow.



Well that's just opening up a totally new can of worms!

But to stick on topic, you'd totally change the whole foundation of the game if you got rid of the rule that allows for momentum. I think more needs to be done in order to catch out forward passes though. In a day an age that we have hawk-eye technology, etc, surely there must be something that could be used?

Assuming we all accept the players momentum effects the eventual trajectory of the ball, who is best placed to judge the direction of the players hands, the ref(who could be at any angle) or touch judge(who should be parallel)?