Thanks, good analysis and explanation. So at this level are you saying teams are not playing set structures such as 2 4 2, 1 3 3 1 etc but drifting in and out of different structures, which is kind of less structured but effective. What would be interesting to know is what prompts they use for that. Or are they playing a set structure and people where needed are pulled in by the gravitational need of neighbouring pods closer to the ball, kind of thing :)
It’s very much the case that teams move between set ups depending on the context. Saints aim for a 1-3-3-1 generally, but it often takes a few phases to get to that and things change along the way. The 3-2-2-1 set up is fairly common off 2nd/3rd phase but as you say players need to move between pods depending on where support is needed 👍🏻
@@GeraintDaviesGDD Brilliant, thanks. The info is not always there for coaches. In Wales for instance, even though i was a head coach at a Championship team (not a great standard) this did not fit their criteria for level 3 progression (invite only). So resources like this are valuable, it is the transmission from setpiece to the formation and from the formation of the structure back to a defence that can be difficult to understand as a concept (im not sure i fully do). I used my version of 1 3 3 1 because i had two players at 10 and 12 who were not particularly attacking threats but were good distributers. It in effect moved team plays from predominately 1 and 2 pass phases too 2 and 3 pass phases. I watch some Acadamy rugby, (Ospreys) that use a 1 3 3 1 set up yet continue to mainly use pick and go, 1 and 2 pass rugby as their structure, which i puzzles me. If your set up to use the field then use it.
It’s important that coaches don’t see any numerical set up as a ‘set structure’. It’s a moving framework that will & should change and flex as play emerges. The purpose is to give some shape to play & help players make effective decisions within boundaries that helps the overall system to operate. There would be little purpose in having a wide set up if teams don’t use it!
I think we need to stop thinking of forward pod structures. Think instead of shape and a "side line policy." probably eventually mid field policy as we saw the AB's try to use this past world cup cycle. phase 1~3, do somethign cute and reach a side line. Phases 4~8(ish) we're in pattern XYZ and shape 'ABC' which might effectively be a 1331(332) 'look' but would be more accurately described as 3 forwards off of 9 3 off 10 and any extras out wide. OR might be 9->10-> forwads if the D is over flowing I dont think the "Spread" or static forward pods will be successful moving forward ( no pun intended) to predictable. Instead we're going to have to have variable policies and shapes for diffrent game plans and tactical circumstances. Make sense?
The game is pretty structured these days and many teams are still stuck in their ways of playing forwards or backs, but thankfully plenty of teams are breaking those habits and running more fluid shapes with mixed players involved. Field set ups are here to stay i think but i agree more imagination is needed (like some teams) to break the habit & challenge defences!
Thanks, good analysis and explanation. So at this level are you saying teams are not playing set structures such as 2 4 2, 1 3 3 1 etc but drifting in and out of different structures, which is kind of less structured but effective. What would be interesting to know is what prompts they use for that. Or are they playing a set structure and people where needed are pulled in by the gravitational need of neighbouring pods closer to the ball, kind of thing :)
It’s very much the case that teams move between set ups depending on the context. Saints aim for a 1-3-3-1 generally, but it often takes a few phases to get to that and things change along the way. The 3-2-2-1 set up is fairly common off 2nd/3rd phase but as you say players need to move between pods depending on where support is needed 👍🏻
@@GeraintDaviesGDD Brilliant, thanks. The info is not always there for coaches. In Wales for instance, even though i was a head coach at a Championship team (not a great standard) this did not fit their criteria for level 3 progression (invite only). So resources like this are valuable, it is the transmission from setpiece to the formation and from the formation of the structure back to a defence that can be difficult to understand as a concept (im not sure i fully do). I used my version of 1 3 3 1 because i had two players at 10 and 12 who were not particularly attacking threats but were good distributers. It in effect moved team plays from predominately 1 and 2 pass phases too 2 and 3 pass phases. I watch some Acadamy rugby, (Ospreys) that use a 1 3 3 1 set up yet continue to mainly use pick and go, 1 and 2 pass rugby as their structure, which i puzzles me. If your set up to use the field then use it.
It’s important that coaches don’t see any numerical set up as a ‘set structure’. It’s a moving framework that will & should change and flex as play emerges. The purpose is to give some shape to play & help players make effective decisions within boundaries that helps the overall system to operate. There would be little purpose in having a wide set up if teams don’t use it!
@@GeraintDaviesGDD Thanks for your time, very useful information.
I think we need to stop thinking of forward pod structures. Think instead of shape and a "side line policy." probably eventually mid field policy as we saw the AB's try to use this past world cup cycle.
phase 1~3, do somethign cute and reach a side line.
Phases 4~8(ish) we're in pattern XYZ and shape 'ABC' which might effectively be a 1331(332) 'look' but would be more accurately described as 3 forwards off of 9 3 off 10 and any extras out wide. OR might be 9->10-> forwads if the D is over flowing
I dont think the "Spread" or static forward pods will be successful moving forward ( no pun intended) to predictable. Instead we're going to have to have variable policies and shapes for diffrent game plans and tactical circumstances.
Make sense?
The game is pretty structured these days and many teams are still stuck in their ways of playing forwards or backs, but thankfully plenty of teams are breaking those habits and running more fluid shapes with mixed players involved. Field set ups are here to stay i think but i agree more imagination is needed (like some teams) to break the habit & challenge defences!
nice
Thanks, Matt 👍🏻