Quote: Wigan Peer "Well as this thread is about your view, as you opened the thread, its only fair that we hear them. And i asked you to clarify them, which you did, eventually.
Our problem has not been the structures but the application which has gone to pot since TL has been injured. Its one thing wanting to have plays like team "a" and other plays like team "b", but we have to play with what we have. TL's absence has also seen the threat of Finch lessen, and Pat's absence has reduced attacking threat, and % of tries converted, and, i believe, affected Charnleys confidence. The plays were working well before TL was injured, just look at tries scored. If they are working fluidly we will score from them. In the major games we have lost the problem has not been the backs, its been in the forwards. To use a football analogy, everybody knew that Beckham could kick a dead ball, and get a half a yard to get a cross in, players knew, but could not stop it.
If you open a thread with the line "I expect a bashing" then expect one. Other people have opinions too, as equally valid and invalid as yours. Have a lovely evening.'"
This.
It isn't the structures but the application. The amount of variation that can be applied is huge. If anyone has played the game to a decent standard and has come up against a team who can pull this sort of structure off efficiently it is virtually unstoppable. The amount of confusion the possible variation causes means even the very best teams have to hang back in defence. There isn't any need to have a book of 'set moves' because having one structure from which the halves/Sam can choose to play however they like is much more effective, when it is applied correctly.
I think the whole issue revolves around not having Tommy within that structure when he was injured.
