Negative gameplan????

[amazing tiger]

i dont want to sound dull and negative but our gameplan against teams has been very negative in my eyes. we just rely on the forwards to get us to the halfway and then we rely on youngs or burns making a good high ball out of it and then hope salvi or crane get there and turn it over. it works sometimes but against good teams it generally does not work. the game against sarries and london irish (both away) we looked clueless when are fowards could not dominate. our backs dont seem to get the ball past 13 much and tbh they look even more clueless. we have missed tualagi and allen. goneva hasnt been at his best but i just think we need to do more than we do and try a few more things.

[L Smith]

i dont want to sound dull and negative but our gameplan against teams has been very negative in my eyes. we just rely on the forwards to get us to the halfway and then we rely on youngs or burns making a good high ball out of it and then hope salvi or crane get there and turn it over. it works sometimes but against good teams it generally does not work. the game against sarries and london irish (both away) we looked clueless when are fowards could not dominate. our backs dont seem to get the ball past 13 much and tbh they look even more clueless. we have missed tualagi and allen. goneva hasnt been at his best but i just think we need to do more than we do and try a few more things.

Valid comment, however...
If we've been negative all year, it's probably going to get worse. We've entered into Knockout rugby after the defeat at Sarries: 3 games earlier than Saints Bath and Sarries. Even if we had the personnel for a more expansive game, I doubt Cockers et al would risk it at this stage and, to be fair, I'm not sure how many of us would thank them if we flung the ball around and attempted offloads that weren't on, particularly against Pests on a wide pitch!

[amazing tiger]

[quotequote]
Valid comment, however...
If we've been negative all year, it's probably going to get worse. We've entered into Knockout rugby after the defeat at Sarries: 3 games earlier than Saints Bath and Sarries. Even if we had the personnel for a more expansive game, I doubt Cockers et al would risk it at this stage and, to be fair, I'm not sure how many of us would thank them if we flung the ball around and attempted offloads that weren't on, particularly against Pests on a wide pitch![/quote]

i understand what you are saying but i just want to see something different not expansive but just a bit more back play

[L Smith]

[quotequote]
Valid comment, however...
If we've been negative all year, it's probably going to get worse. We've entered into Knockout rugby after the defeat at Sarries: 3 games earlier than Saints Bath and Sarries. Even if we had the personnel for a more expansive game, I doubt Cockers et al would risk it at this stage and, to be fair, I'm not sure how many of us would thank them if we flung the ball around and attempted offloads that weren't on, particularly against Pests on a wide pitch!

i understand what you are saying but i just want to see something different not expansive but just a bit more back play[/quote]
Yep: I think we all do but my guess is we'll see a change in the new season

[doublecarpet]

We have a game plan...?!

[L Smith]

We have a game plan...?!

Yes, but it's quite complex so pay attention.
1: Catch the ball from an opposition kick or get Salvi, Cole, OTY to make a turnover
2: pass it to someone near by (should be easy, as the receiver will be static)
3: receiver tries not to drop the catch
4: if successful, run into a gap or, more likely, into contact. NB, If there is a support runner, he is there to form a ruck: do not offload
5: scrum half to make a short pass to a static forward or stand-in inside centre.
6: repeat 4
7: if the above is met with an aggressive defence, pass 180 degrees back to fly half
8: fly half kicks infield and, if Scully isn't playing, everyone sets the defensive line
9: go back to 1

Please don't take this as a serious post. I think we've done ok with the available players and lack of continuity. It's just a bit of fun

[L Smith]

[G.K]

We have a game plan...?!

Yes, but it's quite complex so pay attention.
1: Catch the ball from an opposition kick or get Salvi, Cole, OTY to make a turnover
2: pass it to someone near by (should be easy, as the receiver will be static)
3: receiver tries not to drop the catch
4: if successful, run into a gap or, more likely, into contact. NB, If there is a support runner, he is there to form a ruck: do not offload
5: scrum half to make a short pass to a static forward or stand-in inside centre.
6: repeat 4
7: if the above is met with an aggressive defence, pass 180 degrees back to fly half
8: fly half kicks infield and, if Scully isn't playing, everyone sets the defensive line
9: go back to 1

Please don't take this as a serious post. I think we've done ok with the available players and lack of continuity. It's just a bit of fun

You've got hold of a copy of the Tigers play book then?

[Iain]

I don't know whether 'negative' is the right term. Certainly 'limited'. In attack, we look short of creative ideas as to how to break the gain line. Defences have figured out easily that if they fan out and hold their line then we don't score.

BUT.

1. An ever changing makeshift midfield hasn't helped.
2. Clearly we know this and the coaching changes are with this in mind.

I'd worry far more if this was still the case next season with a first choice midfield.

[RagingBull]

Leicester have a negative game plan well I never!!!!!!

First I have ever heard of this sort of thing being done at Leicester someone should notify the media.

[fleabane]

"1. An ever changing makeshift midfield hasn't helped."

Do the players not know each other? Is the game plan too complex for them to learn? Does a position remain vacant on the training ground if a player is injured, for it only to be filled on match day?

For a team that plays a system, rather than what is in front of it, the changing midfield excuse just doesn't wash!

[jgriffin]

A negative game-plan got a struggling England side to the WC07 final; I suspect the ambition of Tigers is the same.

[4071]

1. An ever changing makeshift midfield hasn't helped.

This would be the ever-changing Tigers midfield
Allen-Smith 5 games
Bai-Goneva 5 games
Allen-Goneva 4 games
Bai-Smith 2 games
Williams-Goneva 2 games
Williams-Tuilagi 2 games
Bai-Tuilagi 1 game
Allen-Tuilagi 1 game
Williams-Smith 1 game
Bai-Catchpole 1 game
Roberts-Catchpole 1 game
Catchpole-Tait 1 game

This would be - for example - Saracens' consistent midfield:
Barritt-Bosch 8 games
Barritt-Taylor 4 games
Wyles-Taylor 3 games
Barritt-Wyles 3 games
Wyles-Bosch 3 game
Taylor-Bosch 2 games
Barrit-Streather 1 game
Farrell-Taylor 1 game
Farrell-Bosch 1 game
Wyles-Tompkins 1 game
Taylor-Tompkins 1 game


It's not ideal to have a continually changing centre pairing, but it's not as if it's completely without precedent. It's a reason for a lack of continuity and familiarity, but it should not be used to excuse the clear deficiencies that are obvious to any observer.

[tigerburnie]

You could also say that Smith, Williams and Goneva are playing out of position,that doesn't help.

[Noddy555]

I don't think any of the top sides set out to have a negative game plan and most would want to base their strategy on a solid defence building into an enterprising attack, but sometimes games don't go that way and you have to deal with each differing situation as it arises. I think the lack of tries scored by the tigers this year can be summed up in three sentences.
A) Poor Tackling which means you are always on the back foot and chasing the ball.
B) Too much lateral action and not enough forward running mainly from our backs.
C)Too many lone wolf forays forward which means the backup is not there when eventually the player is tackled and grounded.