I started watching Tigers when we got the ball out to the backs & Underwood & Evans used to make their opponents look silly, as the pack got better the 2 half if the team got molded together, Deano & Paddys teams played 15 man Rugby, without a coherent set of backs we wouldn't of won the 2 European Cups.
15 man rugby = win the battle up front to ensure quick ball and gaps in opposition back line then release the ball to the backs. Biggest problem we ever had was the stupid change in the maul law whereby you could drive a maul forward for 20 metres and just because it somehow collapsed you lost the put in at the scrum. Any maul that travels more than 10 metres will realistically only collapse through the defence either falling over or deliberately bring it to ground either way it should be a penalty
Personally I would change the maul law like so.
If it goes down while travelling forwards (without a penalty offense) then the attacking side get the put in at the scrum.
If it is stationary when it goes down then it is the defending side who get the put in.
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
When I first started watching, getting the ball was a challenge at times, our backs treasured what ball they got & usually used it well, that got flipped towards the end of our successful period & some of play was wasteful & for me embarrassingly poor.
A varied game plan makes a team far harder to play against.
DNA or no DNA, Without a pack you have no ball winners, no ball carriers and a set piece that will crumble in defence and not offer a platform in attack.
We tried the "Stellar Backline" and ended up with a team, as mother described it, that was "All fur coat and no knickers."
Balance? There is a need for balance but i would bias that towards dominant forwards who can give the backs scope to play.
If you find an uncoordinated game of pass the handbag attractive, fine, nothing wrong with that. The piano shifters, jacklers, pushers, shovers, lifters and cariers have to do their bit first.
If they dont the half backs can't distribute, the centres dodge, crash and pass and the wings catch it, run, and fall over spectacularly.
Tigers DNA? No. A sucessful team DNA is a strong pack.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Opta Top 25. Thought I would post here rather than start a new thread, as it is fairly depressing reading with really the only category Tigers appear several times is penalties conceded. Still, Henry, Steward, Wiese and Hanro all do appear several times in good categories.
happywomble wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:33 pm
Opta Top 25. Thought I would post here rather than start a new thread, as it is fairly depressing reading with really the only category Tigers appear several times is penalties conceded. Still, Henry, Steward, Wiese and Hanro all do appear several times in good categories.
Some definite positives in there for me that tbh we could have identified watching anyway. Such as Steward and Weise carries/metres made, Henry scoring stats, not one Leicester player in the missed tackles list, Liebenburg 2nd in line outs won, Refell and Liebenburg turnovers, Harry Wells tackles.
There are of course negatives - too many penalties, lack of offloads (which ironically they list twice!) but to me as it's not a bad situation given where we have come from.
As an aside there are some real stand outs: Sam Simmonds 14 tries (next best 8); Ludlow and Slater doubling up on line out steals for Glos; Priestland romping the missed tackles list and formerly of this parish Will Evans 24 turnovers (next best 11)!
One thing I noticed at the end of the Borthwick interview is he said he was once in an opposing team that scored over 50 points at Welford Road and our fans clapped the team off at the end. He was astonished at the time how supportive the fans were of the team despite the heavy loss. That must have been a while ago! But I do hope that after the poor performances and after being locked out for so long the fans get back to being proper fans after the pandemic. I think the club can help in terms of match day experience. A fresh start for all shall we say.
ourla wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:53 pm
One thing I noticed at the end of the Borthwick interview is he said he was once in an opposing team that scored over 50 points at Welford Road and our fans clapped the team off at the end. He was astonished at the time how supportive the fans were of the team despite the heavy loss. That must have been a while ago!
ourla wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:53 pm
One thing I noticed at the end of the Borthwick interview is he said he was once in an opposing team that scored over 50 points at Welford Road and our fans clapped the team off at the end. He was astonished at the time how supportive the fans were of the team despite the heavy loss. That must have been a while ago!
I started watching Tigers when we got the ball out to the backs & Underwood & Evans used to make their opponents look silly, as the pack got better the 2 half if the team got molded together, Deano & Paddys teams played 15 man Rugby, without a coherent set of backs we wouldn't of won the 2 European Cups.
15 man rugby = win the battle up front to ensure quick ball and gaps in opposition back line then release the ball to the backs. Biggest problem we ever had was the stupid change in the maul law whereby you could drive a maul forward for 20 metres and just because it somehow collapsed you lost the put in at the scrum. Any maul that travels more than 10 metres will realistically only collapse through the defence either falling over or deliberately bring it to ground either way it should be a penalty
Personally I would change the maul law like so.
If it goes down while travelling forwards (without a penalty offense) then the attacking side get the put in at the scrum.
If it is stationary when it goes down then it is the defending side who get the put in.
Is there not already, if anything, too much of an advantage to the attacking team in a maul? It's been a long time since I recall a maul travelling 20 metres, going down, and the attacking team losing possession.
My only gripe is the "choke tackle" situation, but that could be fixed by the referees actually applying all the laws on mauls when this happens. I.e. if the defensive team brings it down, which happens almost every time, it's a penalty offence. Also, if the defensive team piles in at the side and even the opposite side after maul is called (which happens almost every time), it's a penalty offence.
You do get the other way, where the defending side get the drive on, maul goes down, Sir the vast majority of the time gives a penalty to the side with the ball, ignoring what has actually occurred.
