At the end of the day it's a team game, furthermore a squad game. To get the most out of the each play you all need to know what each person is doing and when they're doing it. So you employ set structures which allow a fluid team attack with accurate passing and movement and everyone know's what each person is doing. Additionally, if a structure is in place it makes it easier to replace injured or suspended players, as the new player knows the structure of the team and will have more chance of success slotting into a well drilled well structured team.
Additionally if a team is dependent on a half or two to create the play...what happens if the half is injured? A new half steps in and isn't as effective, meaning the team aren't half as effective.

The truth is that a player can be creative and play 'off the cuff' rugby when the time is right even within the structure, the team will never run the set plays for each and every set.

3rd attempt at replying to this










You could argue quite strongly that Wigan fans don't just want to win in era of winning trophies but declining attendances with many ex fans criticising the quality of the play.

For me there is a difference between a well drilled team and being over coached. Last year Saints were an exceptionally well drilled team however, they also threw the ball about when a player thought it was the right play. A good coach who believed in his team to let them [lay a bit.
The game is about players not coaches but I'm probably just too biased in my opinions





I think that more substitutions has been a major factor in the decline of the game as a spectacle and a reduction in skill levels across all positions. This is particularly so in the forwards where the use of 5 or 6 props in a game has been pretty disastrous and i really dislike of a prop at 13.

Good post, and Saints are a good example. Very well drilled; everyone knew what their role was/is and their structures, but within their structures they can play, especially their 1, 6, 7 and 9. The spine.

Maybe we have had the wrong balance? Winning trophies and reduced attendances sounds like a oxymoron to me.

Sorry to disagree but I dont in general like "impact" players. If they were any good they would be in the starting 13.
Name me half a dozen great or even really good impact players?
I know that you will name some and im sure they may be decent players but if they are that good why put them on the bench?? Will your list of impact players include any backs?

Multiple substitutions leads to athletes rather than rugby players.

I can name some but I don’t see the point. You clearly aren’t a fan of impact players, which is fine by the way it’s not a criticism of you but me naming some won’t change your mind.

Re balance perhaps we did but it was successful. I would much rather a SW type style that was consistently winning trophies and beating our nearest and dearest rivals than a free-flowing, no idea what we’re doing style we adopted last season which resulted in us being torn to pieces by Saints each time we played them and in reality we were never really serious contenders for the SL trophy.

I’m not convinced Lam has the credentials or ability to strike that balance. We have the players to do it but it’s the coach where the biggest question mark is for me.

Good post mate. The irony with Lam is all he claimed to improve has gone backward. We're not getting free-flow rugby; we're getting a disorganised mess.

I actually do see the advantage of 'impact players' At times the teams energy can drop if the other team is getting on the front foot or if they've seen a lot of ball. Impact players (for example Rob Burrow) added energy, speed at a time when the oppositions forwards energy is dropping. I've seen games changed with an impact player comes off the bench.