Living in the Past!

[ellis9]

Dear me, this is hard work!

I know the lineouts have been poor and I know we haven't put pressure on teams. I'm not saying the Tigers way is to cheat to get penalties. What I am saying is that the Tigers way is to be forward dominating which puts pressure on opponents which forces them to concede penalties. We are not doing that at the moment because we are not playing the Tigers way. We probably can't play the Tigers way now as our forwards aren't as powerful because we have moved away from the Tigers way. What I am saying is, we shouldn't have changed from the Tigers way and I said this from the very start when Mauger was brought in.

[ellis9]

Ultimately, we used to do what we needed to do to win.

If that was yo play "boring" rugby, then we played "boring" rugby. If winning trophies was "boring" then god help us!

[ourla]

What I am saying is that the Tigers way is to be forward dominating which puts pressure on opponents which forces them to concede penalties. We are not doing that at the moment because we are not playing the Tigers way.

Nope. We are not doing it because we aren't playing well enough. It's nothing to do with playing the "Tigers way".

Any successful team must have a physical and functioning forward pack. And they also need a fit and functioning back line. It's not either or. And as I illustrated on the "A comparison" thread our players have shown the ability to play much better and to be able to compete. They are simply not performing.

[Roly]

Dear me, this is hard work!

I know the lineouts have been poor and I know we haven't put pressure on teams. I'm not saying the Tigers way is to cheat to get penalties. What I am saying is that the Tigers way is to be forward dominating which puts pressure on opponents which forces them to concede penalties. We are not doing that at the moment because we are not playing the Tigers way. We probably can't play the Tigers way now as our forwards aren't as powerful because we have moved away from the Tigers way. What I am saying is, we shouldn't have changed from the Tigers way and I said this from the very start when Mauger was brought in.

That is all demonstrably wrong.

[ourla]

One thing that puzzles me. There have been other successful periods for other elite rugby teams. Is there a Saracens way, was there a Wasps way, what about an All Black way or a Leinster way? Does any successful team have a unique way?

There are certainly some distinct differences or strengths you might say. Perhaps there was a period when Mauger was here where the forwards were asked to do things they weren't used to and hence the "mixed messages" discussion. But that is not the case now. The back end of last season and start of this they are being asked to do anything out of the ordinary. And as I say they have proved themselves capable of doing it - inconsistently.

[ellis9]

Ourla, we are not playing well but we are trying to play running, "exciting" rugby. It just isn't working at the moment. What is difficult to understand about this?!

Yes, Saracens have a Saracens way and Wasps have a Wasps way. Saracens way is to be dominant up front and exploit opponents weaknesses and the Wasps way is to score more points than the opposition by running in tries left, right and centre. They will happily concede 30 points as they will score 40.

[Roly]

One thing that puzzles me. There have been other successful periods for other elite rugby teams. Is there a Saracens way, was there a Wasps way, what about an All Black way or a Leinster way? Does any successful team have a unique way?

There are certainly some distinct differences or strengths you might say. Perhaps there was a period when Mauger was here where the forwards were asked to do things they weren't used to and hence the "mixed messages" discussion. But that is not the case now. The back end of last season and start of this they are being asked to do anything out of the ordinary. And as I say they have proved themselves capable of doing it - inconsistently.

The elephant in the room here is that whatever the Saracens or Wasps way is, it has evolved from what it was. Tigers seem singularly incapable of adapting their style of play in order that they can become a genuine threat to the league again.

[ourla]

Ourla, we are not playing well but we are trying to play running, "exciting" rugby. It just isn't working at the moment. What is difficult to understand about this?!

You are equating the forwards not playing well with playing "exciting" rugby and this is clearly incorrect. We can't play exciting rugby or any other kind of rugby until the forwards play well.

Yes, Saracens have a Saracens way and Wasps have a Wasps way. Saracens way is to be dominant up front and exploit opponents weaknesses and the Wasps way is to score more points than the opposition by running in tries left, right and centre. They will happily concede 30 points as they will score 40.

So Saracens are playing the Leicester way and Leicester are playing the Wasps way? Either way would be fine by me - as long as we did it well.

Which way are Exeter, the current Prem champions, playing?

[BFG]

One thing that puzzles me. There have been other successful periods for other elite rugby teams. Is there a Saracens way, was there a Wasps way, what about an All Black way or a Leinster way? Does any successful team have a unique way?

There are certainly some distinct differences or strengths you might say. Perhaps there was a period when Mauger was here where the forwards were asked to do things they weren't used to and hence the "mixed messages" discussion. But that is not the case now. The back end of last season and start of this they are being asked to do anything out of the ordinary. And as I say they have proved themselves capable of doing it - inconsistently.

The elephant in the room here is that whatever the Saracens or Wasps way is, it has evolved from what it was. Tigers seem singularly incapable of adapting their style of play in order that they can become a genuine threat to the league again.

And do you think that incapability to adapt is an ability issue or a selection policy issue and if so why?
When Saracens rotate here and there do they perhaps just tweak it tactically elsewhere to suit how they think various partnerships gel across the board and how it'll impact the rest of the team and the best way to win a game, for example the difference between Wigglesworth and Spencer on the forwards or backs particular game plan on a given day, or do they have a pecking order policy of selection?
Genuine question, no argument required!

[Roly]

One thing that puzzles me. There have been other successful periods for other elite rugby teams. Is there a Saracens way, was there a Wasps way, what about an All Black way or a Leinster way? Does any successful team have a unique way?

There are certainly some distinct differences or strengths you might say. Perhaps there was a period when Mauger was here where the forwards were asked to do things they weren't used to and hence the "mixed messages" discussion. But that is not the case now. The back end of last season and start of this they are being asked to do anything out of the ordinary. And as I say they have proved themselves capable of doing it - inconsistently.

The elephant in the room here is that whatever the Saracens or Wasps way is, it has evolved from what it was. Tigers seem singularly incapable of adapting their style of play in order that they can become a genuine threat to the league again.

And do you think that incapability to adapt is an ability issue or a selection policy issue and if so why?
When Saracens rotate here and there do they perhaps just tweak it tactically elsewhere to suit how they think various partnerships gel across the board and how it'll impact the rest of the team and the best way to win a game, for example the difference between Wigglesworth and Spencer on the forwards or backs particular game plan on a given day, or do they have a pecking order policy of selection?
Genuine question, no argument required!

I think its quite likely to be both an ability and a selection policy issue. Recruitment seems to follow a 'stopgap' approach - particularly in midfield where the selectors are seemingly hell-bent on waiting for Tuilagi to return and then building the strategy around him - that or hell to freeze over, whichever is sooner.

The ability of some of the players to adapt to what the opposition or the referee is doing seem to have been coached out of them.

Saracens, for example, from 1 - 23 understand what is required at an individual and strategic level, and are interchangeable. That takes a lot of hard work, but its clearly achievable. Saracens also only appear to recruit players who they think are capable of understanding their way. I don't think they have a pecking order, they have a clear strategy - pick the team best suited to beating the opposition. And you have to admit, its working extremely well.

[BFG]

The elephant in the room here is that whatever the Saracens or Wasps way is, it has evolved from what it was. Tigers seem singularly incapable of adapting their style of play in order that they can become a genuine threat to the league again.

And do you think that incapability to adapt is an ability issue or a selection policy issue and if so why?
When Saracens rotate here and there do they perhaps just tweak it tactically elsewhere to suit how they think various partnerships gel across the board and how it'll impact the rest of the team and the best way to win a game, for example the difference between Wigglesworth and Spencer on the forwards or backs particular game plan on a given day, or do they have a pecking order policy of selection?
Genuine question, no argument required!

I think its quite likely to be both an ability and a selection policy issue. Recruitment seems to follow a 'stopgap' approach - particularly in midfield where the selectors are seemingly hell-bent on waiting for Tuilagi to return and then building the strategy around him - that or hell to freeze over, whichever is sooner.

The ability of some of the players to adapt to what the opposition or the referee is doing seem to have been coached out of them.

Saracens, for example, from 1 - 23 understand what is required at an individual and strategic level, and are interchangeable. That takes a lot of hard work, but its clearly achievable. Saracens also only appear to recruit players who they think are capable of understanding their way. I don't think they have a pecking order, they have a clear strategy - pick the team best suited to beating the opposition. And you have to admit, its working extremely well.

I suppose it's much easier to make any game plan work when you possess the type of quality that they do up front but I have been surprised by their ability to maintain it through all of the international call ups.
I did think a blip possible however unlikely as they have several changes to integrate so it'll be interesting to see how that all goes.
I'm looking more at their less known players really, where they are coming from etc, and the standard which is often nothing spectacular on the face of it, but they do seem to perform well in their strict roles at Saracens even when they have been average elsewhere.
I think they are the most old school Leicester type team that I have ever seen just with a few more of the obvious professional modern attributes.

[Tiglon]

Saracens have excelled at formulating a successful style of play, communicating it clearly to the team, creating a positive culture and recruiting the right players to fit this. Listening to Brendan Venter speak about how this was achieved, at a charity dinner last year, it's not surprising they have been so good.

If I was sat in a changing room with him, Cockerill and O'Connor, I know which one would inspire me.

It looks like Exeter have done exactly the same.

I'd welcome Venter to Tigers in a heartbeat.

[mol2]

The main reason we are playing running rugby is because the forwards are not up to it.

However we are discovering running rugby is essentially the icing on the cake when the forwards have won the ball and created the holes for the backs to run in into. Kidding ourselves that it is going to be an easy fix has become a forlorn hope.

Very few of our forwards have the skills an physicality to compete with the best teams in the league. It may take time to build a team but we give the season impression that we don't understand we need to look long and hard at the foundations of a team - the forwards so I am not sure the building has begun.

[chewbacca]

The main reason we are playing running rugby is because the forwards are not up to it.

However we are discovering running rugby is essentially the icing on the cake when the forwards have won the ball and created the holes for the backs to run in into. Kidding ourselves that it is going to be an easy fix has become a forlorn hope.

Very few of our forwards have the skills an physicality to compete with the best teams in the league. It may take time to build a team but we give the season impression that we don't understand we need to look long and hard at the foundations of a team - the forwards so I am not sure the building has begun.

Spot on

[stanlycam1]

During the commentary of the Northampton game, it was mentioned that players have to get changed in the corridor until they are invited to use the changing room. I am all for traditional but it is 2017 and these are well paid professionals.