7 Tackle Sets

[Huge]

Ok people, just pretend it isn't me who is asking the question.

Is the seven tackle set such a big deal anymore?

We have seen literally a hundred or more sets of 7/8/9/10/11 sets and even a few with 12+. A lot of them have also been successfully defended. In fact we have been able to defend an 8 and a 9 tackle set. We see a dozen 7 and 8 /9/10 tackle sets in some games and plenty of games have 6 to 10 a game.

So, my position is simple. I don't think it's a big deal nowadays.
For me it means we should use it as a tactic to take out of the game (limit) players like Papenhyzen. Some teams hve tremendous strength across the back three.

Why not kick for ingoal ALL the time? Take away regarding it as an 'error' and getting them to pull up then becomes much easier. The kicker no longer half arses it. Aim for trap in goal but if it goes dead, so what? We have a set defence and the attack ALL have to get back onside which gives us a breather. One extra tackle balanced against the occasional trap in goal plus a breather.

Tell me why I'm wrong or being stupid.

 

[theshed]

Ok people, just pretend it isn't me who is asking the question.

Is the seven tackle set such a big deal anymore?

We have seen literally a hundred or more sets of 7/8/9/10/11 sets and even a few with 12+. A lot of them have also been successfully defended. In fact we have been able to defend an 8 and a 9 tackle set. We see a dozen 7 and 8 /9/10 tackle sets in some games and plenty of games have 6 to 10 a game.

So, my position is simple. I don't think it's a big deal nowadays.
For me it means we should use it as a tactic to take out of the game (limit) players like Papenhyzen. Some teams hve tremendous strength across the back three.

Why not kick for ingoal ALL the time? Take away regarding it as an 'error' and getting them to pull up then becomes much easier. The kicker no longer half arses it. Aim for trap in goal but if it goes dead, so what? We have a set defence and the attack ALL have to get back onside which gives us a breather. One extra tackle balanced against the occasional trap in goal plus a breather.

Tell me why I'm wrong or being stupid.

Yeah the idiocy of the 6 again rules knows now bounds. There’s almost no advantage to the attacking team if they are victim to an infringement on the first tackle and even less so if they are deep in their own half. Many teams are already doing it but I would strongly be advising my players to hold down as long as you can every first tackle, and once the six again is called take even longer to get up because I’ve yet to see a 6 again be turned into a penalty and what are they gonna do, call double 6 again?

I would telling players to push it as far as they can, giving a weekly prize the guy who gets away with the longest first tackle without getting a penalty (other than 6 again).

The trend came in a few years ago to get penalised on purpose on your own line because a penalty and defending another set was better then defending on your line without a set defensive line but teams got wise and started taking the 2 each time to try and counter act it; well that is no longer and option, so again, I’d be telling player to back your defence and happily give endless 6 agains on your own line until you frustrate an error.

I also think you are on to something and that a good tactic for us would be to just give it to Isaako 30-40m out and tell him to flog his best field goal attempt. As you said, the 7 tackle set is no longer the penalty it once was and if he misses by enough it will take a while to restart play giving players a decent rest. On top of that, possession is key these days and a successful field goal, though only 1 point (or 2 in rare cases), gives our team a massive rest and give us the ball back. With 6 agains being so common, it’s fairly likely that a successful field goal would actually result in a 7+ tackle set for us; and if you give Haas enough runs in that set, you’d almost be back in field goal range. It would be bizarre to witness.

 

[Nashy]

Hate the 6 again rule. It's just used to fix matches.

 

[Waynesaurus]

All that these rule changes have done is to further narrow the play styles teams can use to be successful, there's no variety in how teams play now, its all down to how suited you are to the fast and direct style and trying to earn those set restarts.

Teams cant really control the pace of the game anymore, the rules and the refereeing wont allow it.

If your team doesn't have the right mix of players suited to the new play style you are farked, and with covid and the salary cap its very hard to overhaul your roster in a short time to become competitive and then there isn't enough quality in the player stocks to choose from.

And now the NRL want to add another team, mostly likely it'll be the weaker teams that get raided as players jump ship looking for something better, the gap between the top and bottom clubs is only going to get greater.

 

[Huge]

All that these rule changes have done is to further narrow the play styles teams can use to be successful, there's no variety in how teams play now, its all down to how suited you are to the fast and direct style and trying to earn those set restarts.

Teams cant really control the pace of the game anymore, the rules and the refereeing wont allow it.

If your team doesn't have the right mix of players suited to the new play style you are farked, and with covid and the salary cap its very hard to overhaul your roster in a short time to become competitive and then there isn't enough quality in the player stocks to choose from.

And now the NRL want to add another team, mostly likely it'll be the weaker teams that get raided as players jump ship looking for something better, the gap between the top and bottom clubs is only going to get greater.

Largely agree here with you but again the offensive side CAN control their half of the game. I'm just suggesting the following as food for thought but consider our next game. We expect to get pumped with Penrith running in a big score 40-55 odd points. Now ,thinking about our ptb speeds it averages at around 3.5 seconds. Multiply by 6 gives us 21 seconds a set. Now that's just the ptb and of course does not indicate how long we actually have the ball in our possession.

Further multiplication of our sets for a game (average 40) means we spend 840 seconds a match just in ptbs. That's 14 minutes at our current speeds. So, if we took our time and employed a slow ptb we could easily double the time WE TAKE FROM PENRITH to score or whatever. Imagine making them wait, every single time forcing the defence to stand still, 10 metres away. Further imagine how much more time we have to breathe, how much energy is conserved and how much easier it is to organise your next hitup.

With a slower pace we get a much less frantic scramble. We take our time, set our kicker and, god forbid, become more NFL like. They set up plays, why can we not do the same? If we simply slow our ptbs to 7 seconds WE TAKE ALMOST 15 MINUTES from Penrith( whomever we play) per game. That's 15 freaking minutes with just one tactic.

Everyone has seen what teams do to us in 10 minute period and it seems that tries come in a rush so why not employ this tactic if a team scores on us. Reduce the time they have the ball, increase our overall minutes, gain far better control of every single play and produce far better outcomes on our 5th tackle.

Analysis of our go forward shows we won't lose a great deal in metreage. Anyway, food for thought. One last thing, changing from 14 minutes to 28 minutes will have an enormous impact on the oppositions time with ball in hand.

 

[Financeguy]

Imagine making them wait, every single time forcing the defence to stand still, 10 metres away. Further imagine how much more time we have to breathe, how much energy is conserved and how much easier it is to organise your next hitup.

Surely your theory allows for fast play the balls when we have the opposition on the back foot or inefficient markers?

It would be interesting to see it employed when on our own goal line. Often teams have their adrenaline up and are bolting out the line to smash us knowing that it is most likely one out hitups. Not sure if your theory means we would be easier to keep down our end or if some of the excitement is taken out of the opposition as they wait for us to play the ball, might even invite an offside penalty if they are too impatient. Certainly food for thought...

 

[Huge]

Surely your theory allows for fast play the balls when we have the opposition on the back foot or inefficient markers?

Oh absolutely. I was thinking out loud, yes and in practice we would certainly not be employing such a tactic from 25 metres out from the try line. It's very definitely a tactic for deep in our half onwards. I'd adopt a team call [ AND WE'RE WALKING, WALKING ] or similar.

It would be something to consider after we've been scored on however if we are 'in the match' or heavens above, leading you wouldn't thinkabout such a tactic. If we think back to our games and considering the other blowout scores in other matches we see a rush of points. We need to be able to arrest that and currently, no tactic has worked.

What tends to happen is the opposition scores, gets the ball back yet again and attacks hard. We try to stop them and usually fail. Why? Mainly because we are shagged and the onslaught is relentless. When we finally get the ball what do we do, time and again?

That's right, we force shagged players to suddenly put on plays AND WE RUSH LIKE MADMEN to give the ball straight back!!!! That's fucking insane. What we should be doing is having a breather, taking our own sweet time because WE DECIDE HOW FAST PLAY IS. It's our turn to dictate the pace of the game. I've watched closely and I'm always apprehensive when the opposition has the ball especially after just scoring. We shouldn't hurry through our set just to give the ball back to our tormentors. Usually we hand it straight back after 4 or 5 very weak and quick tackles/hit ups. That's madness. We have the ball, we should dictate terms.

 

[Financeguy]

Oh absolutely. I was thinking out loud, yes and in practice we would certainly not be employing such a tactic from 25 metres out from the try line. It's very definitely a tactic for deep in our half onwards. I'd adopt a team call [ AND WE'RE WALKING, WALKING ] or similar.

It would be something to consider after we've been scored on however if we are 'in the match' or heavens above, leading you wouldn't thinkabout such a tactic. If we think back to our games and considering the other blowout scores in other matches we see a rush of points. We need to be able to arrest that and currently, no tactic has worked.

What tends to happen is the opposition scores, gets the ball back yet again and attacks hard. We try to stop them and usually fail. Why? Mainly because we are shagged and the onslaught is relentless. When we finally get the ball what do we do, time and again?

That's right, we force shagged players to suddenly put on plays AND WE RUSH LIKE MADMEN to give the ball straight back!!!! That's fucking insane. What we should be doing is having a breather, taking our own sweet time because WE DECIDE HOW FAST PLAY IS. It's our turn to dictate the pace of the game. I've watched closely and I'm always apprehensive when the opposition has the ball especially after just scoring. We shouldn't hurry through our set just to give the ball back to our tormentors. Usually we hand it straight back after 4 or 5 very weak and quick tackles/hit ups. That's madness. We have the ball, we should dictate terms.

Look, i think it has got some merit as for the last season and a half, probably even longer, we have given up points either back to back (to back) or in short periods of time so anything that we can do to slow the game down after being scored on, even just to temper the opponents momentum is worth looking at.

I think this kind of tactic comes back to the old 'do what the opposition doesn't want you to do' mantra. When their tails are up the opposition wants a fast game and slowing it down will frustrate them.

My fear is we don't have enough players with the football nous to successfully employ such tactics as, like you say, they would have to only be employed when we get maximum benefit from it.

 

[Kimlo]

Oh absolutely. I was thinking out loud, yes and in practice we would certainly not be employing such a tactic from 25 metres out from the try line. It's very definitely a tactic for deep in our half onwards. I'd adopt a team call [ AND WE'RE WALKING, WALKING ] or similar.

It would be something to consider after we've been scored on however if we are 'in the match' or heavens above, leading you wouldn't thinkabout such a tactic. If we think back to our games and considering the other blowout scores in other matches we see a rush of points. We need to be able to arrest that and currently, no tactic has worked.

What tends to happen is the opposition scores, gets the ball back yet again and attacks hard. We try to stop them and usually fail. Why? Mainly because we are shagged and the onslaught is relentless. When we finally get the ball what do we do, time and again?

That's right, we force shagged players to suddenly put on plays AND WE RUSH LIKE MADMEN to give the ball straight back!!!! That's fucking insane. What we should be doing is having a breather, taking our own sweet time because WE DECIDE HOW FAST PLAY IS. It's our turn to dictate the pace of the game. I've watched closely and I'm always apprehensive when the opposition has the ball especially after just scoring. We shouldn't hurry through our set just to give the ball back to our tormentors. Usually we hand it straight back after 4 or 5 very weak and quick tackles/hit ups. That's madness. We have the ball, we should dictate terms.

We can't even get our halves to pass a ball to make a certain opposition player do some work in defence, there's no way they have the brains to know when and how to implement this.

I'm not saying it's a strategy that wouldn't have a place in certain periods of certain games, but our players are dumb.

Also one obvious thing you're missing is defending is harder than attacking fitness wise, so while you would be stealing time off the opposition, you would also be keeping them much fresher than they otherwise would be as slow play the balls doesn't do much for our team fitness wise, but helps the other team get their breath back.

 

[Huge]

We can't even get our halves to pass a ball to make a certain opposition player do some work in defence, there's no way they have the brains to know when and how to implement this.

I'm not saying it's a strategy that wouldn't have a place in certain periods of certain games, but our players are dumb.

Also one obvious thing you're missing is defending is harder than attacking fitness wise, so while you would be stealing time off the opposition, you would also be keeping them much fresher than they otherwise would be as slow play the balls doesn't do much for our team fitness wise, but helps the other team get their breath back.

Don't worry, I didn't just consider the effect on one team!!! Not sure how you reached the silly conclusion that I didn't understand defending is harder than attacking. I mean, the whole thrust of my idea is that we halve the defending we do!!! Really? How do you think I am missing or haven't thought about the effects of endlessly defending when MY WHOLE IDEA is to stop doing so much?

If we have the ball we aren't defending and if we double the time we have the ball we halve the time defending!!! I kind of get it. Sure, there's the effect on the other team but we can only control what we do. I'm just suggesting that at certain times we slow down, control the frantic pace, play with precise control and have a breather especially just after they've scored and we finally get the ball back. You've seen it yourself. They score, we huddle, we kick off, they're full of running, we are again defending and the FINALLY we get the ball back, usually 5-7 metres out from our line. Yes? You recognise this ? Is this not what happens?

So, what do we usually do?
A winger takes a hit up, a centre takes a hitup, followed by another winger or centre and we're barely past 20 if at all. It's our one fucking chance to take control and we waste it, totally waste it. We don't get all the value available in our possession. This insane frantic desire for a fast ptb works against us.

As you said, it takes more out of a team defending than attacking so why give the defence so little time actually defending? You have seen the scenario time and again. A winger or fullback caught 10 metres out from his goal line, someone hurries into dummy half. Either he runs or he passes it to the ONLY other guy within cooee.

You must have seen that a thousand times. What does the defence have? Yep, a set defensive line, ready to smash the only guy who can get the ball. So, where's the advantage of a fast ptb? In my opinion far far more can be gained by the first tackle/ ptb being slow so as to enable options on tackle 3/4/5. It gives us time to have a breather, get some big bodies onside and ready to run and more targets for the dummy half to find.

The defence already has the advantage, why play like madmen just to give them the ball back as quickly as possible?

 

[Kimlo]

Don't worry, I didn't just consider the effect on one team!!! Not sure how you reached the silly conclusion that I didn't understand defending is harder than attacking. I mean, the whole thrust of my idea is that we halve the defending we do!!! Really? How do you think I am missing or haven't thought about the effects of endlessly defending when MY WHOLE IDEA is to stop doing so much?

If we have the ball we aren't defending and if we double the time we have the ball we halve the time defending!!! I kind of get it. Sure, there's the effect on the other team but we can only control what we do. I'm just suggesting that at certain times we slow down, control the frantic pace, play with precise control and have a breather especially just after they've scored and we finally get the ball back. You've seen it yourself. They score, we huddle, we kick off, they're full of running, we are again defending and the FINALLY we get the ball back, usually 5-7 metres out from our line. Yes? You recognise this ? Is this not what happens?

So, what do we usually do?
A winger takes a hit up, a centre takes a hitup, followed by another winger or centre and we're barely past 20 if at all. It's our one fucking chance to take control and we waste it, totally waste it. We don't get all the value available in our possession. This insane frantic desire for a fast ptb works against us.

As you said, it takes more out of a team defending than attacking so why give the defence so little time actually defending? You have seen the scenario time and again. A winger or fullback caught 10 metres out from his goal line, someone hurries into dummy half. Either he runs or he passes it to the ONLY other guy within cooee.

You must have seen that a thousand times. What does the defence have? Yep, a set defensive line, ready to smash the only guy who can get the ball. So, where's the advantage of a fast ptb? In my opinion far far more can be gained by the first tackle/ ptb being slow so as to enable options on tackle 3/4/5. It gives us time to have a breather, get some big bodies onside and ready to run and more targets for the dummy half to find.

The defence already has the advantage, why play like madmen just to give them the ball back as quickly as possible?

Let's say I agree that it's a good tactical idea that has genuine competitive merit, you still need the players to know when to implement it. You can't have black and white strategies unless they're the fundamentals like line speed and hitting hard.

Who do you think would be the on field general to determine when and where we start this strategy?

Our team is dumb as bricks. We don't even know how to use a captain's challenge.

We have the most intellectually challenged team in the game. Anything other than run hard this way, is going to go over their head.

Maybe if we recruit someone like Reynolds, a fullback with some tactical nous and a couple of other signings who actually have footy brains, you can start to use strats like this.

 

[Financeguy]

Let's say I agree that it's a good tactical idea that has genuine competitive merit, you still need the players to know when to implement it. You can't have black and white strategies unless they're the fundamentals like line speed and hitting hard.

Who do you think would be the on field general to determine when and where we start this strategy?

Our team is dumb as bricks. We don't even know how to use a captain's challenge.

We have the most intellectually challenged team in the game. Anything other than run hard this way, is going to go over their head.

Maybe if we recruit someone like Reynolds, a fullback with some tactical nous and a couple of other signings who actually have footy brains, you can start to use strats like this.

Agree, this kind of strategy would need either the captain and a senior half (or both) to dictate when it is in use and i barely trust Glenn to do the coin toss adequately and we don't have a senior half with a feeling for the game and the confidence to control it.

 

[Morkel]

The slow PTB idea is still a bad idea, and you should feel bad.

I agree that the 7 tackle set can have merit. Especially if we are being pinned and the opposition wingers are covering for 40/20's, if someone can just belt the fucker as hard as possible without worrying about it going dead, it's a worthwhile tactic.

And, with the 30 metre line there, the refs will have no choice but to give is a legitimate 10 metres, as opposed to the 12 and 13 we normally get.

 

[Huge]

Let's say I agree that it's a good tactical idea that has genuine competitive merit, you still need the players to know when to implement it. You can't have black and white strategies unless they're the fundamentals like line speed and hitting hard.

Who do you think would be the on field general to determine when and where we start this strategy?

Our team is dumb as bricks. We don't even know how to use a captain's challenge.

We have the most intellectually challenged team in the game. Anything other than run hard this way, is going to go over their head.

Maybe if we recruit someone like Reynolds, a fullback with some tactical nous and a couple of other signings who actually have footy brains, you can start to use strats like this.

They're all good points. I totally acknowledge new things need practice.

First of all I'd sit the gang down in the video room and show them footage from multiple matches of the kick and first possession trapped deep in one's own territory. I'd show t least 20 of them. The dummy half making 3 metres or the pass to the only guy there. I'd then impress on my back three that I want them to take their sweet motherfucking time getting up, looking round checking there's a dummy half in possession, stretching a knee or hammy, anything they like just so it's as slow as ****.

Remember here, I'm only talking to my back three. It's usually the wingers but still, just the back three. My captain though or dominant half would get a simple instruction, get the guys onside. The amount of dawdling that players do in our team is staggering but what few people know(or even observe) is that Craig Bellamy doesn't tolerate it. If his team is in that situation he expects guys sprinting to get onside, this being put onside and dawdling back thing is a sin.

So, we only need the back three to know to slow the **** down and our on field general to scream at his troops to get onside and provide options. The defence is already set and there's nothing we can do about it so if we take our time we lose absolutely NOTHING but we gain a breather, provide options, have greater and more precise control and the right guys, forwards, are the ones getting smashed by giant forwards and not our centres and fullback.

I don't see this particular situation as being difficult to implement no matter how dumb you may think our guys are. In fact, I believe it's rather simple with multiple benefits and no downside.

 

[Big Pete]

It's not so much the seven tackle set as much as it's the free 20m and set start in the middle of the field. Ideally you get a good kick-chase going, trap them in a corner and belt the winger on the next tackle to effectively win the set.

The only time I could see it being permissible is when a team is trapped inside their own 30m and they just need to kick the ball as far as possible.

 

[Huge]

The slow PTB idea is still a bad idea, and you should feel bad.

I agree that the 7 tackle set can have merit. Especially if we are being pinned and the opposition wingers are covering for 40/20's, if someone can just belt the fucker as hard as possible without worrying about it going dead, it's a worthwhile tactic.

And, with the 30 metre line there, the refs will have no choice but to give is a legitimate 10 metres, as opposed to the 12 and 13 we normally get.

Good, good. I am genuine when I say thankyou for considering my view about the 7 tackle set and why I think these days it's not a big deal. It's also quite good that you grasped what I meant without just dismissing it because of the author. When the stigma of kicking it dead is removed it becomes so so much easier to get the ball to pull up ingoal. If you're unconcerned with kicking it too hard you get it to pull up way more often.

Obviously we wouldn't be doing this from 20 out! However if we are at 5th tackle and not in an attacking position I say kick it long low and hard at the goalposts( or at least in that direction)

 

[Huge]

It's not so much the seven tackle set as much as it's the free 20m and set start in the middle of the field. Ideally you get a good kick-chase going, trap them in a corner and belt the winger on the next tackle to effectively win the set.

The only time I could see it being permissible is when a team is trapped inside their own 30m and they just need to kick the ball as far as possible.

True true but we seldom are in that position. We rarely get down there and even if we do get down there closeish the good teams are already close to their 20 on the first. The advantage we get is we get a break, we have a straight line defence, we're only back 10 metres and we are organized. In other words we are exercising control which is a great habit. We're in charge and saving energy. They attack must get everyone onside so we have the advantage of being the ones already onside. We are in charge and in play. 7 tackles or six tackles from the 20 the resukts are much the same.

I know doing something different is hard to accept but the more you think about the dead in goal result the easier is to see we can make it work to our advantage.

Truthfully, how many teams give away penalties and six agains 10 metres out from their OWN goal .ine? Why is 6 tackles okay 10 metres out but 7 tackles 80 metres out NOT OKAY????

Think about it. How stupid to think 7 tackles from 80 metres out is somehow bad but 6 tackles from 10 metres out is not a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[holdzy]

True true but we seldom are in that position. We rarely get down there and even if we do get down there closeish the good teams are already close to their 20 on the first. The advantage we get is we get a break, we have a straight line defence, we're only back 10 metres and we are organized. In other words we are exercising control which is a great habit. We're in charge and saving energy. They attack must get everyone onside so we have the advantage of being the ones already onside. We are in charge and in play. 7 tackles or six tackles from the 20 the resukts are much the same.

I know doing something different is hard to accept but the more you think about the dead in goal result the easier is to see we can make it work to our advantage.

Truthfully, how many teams give away penalties and six agains 10 metres out from their OWN goal .ine? Why is 6 tackles okay 10 metres out but 7 tackles 80 metres out NOT OKAY????

Think about it. How stupid to think 7 tackles from 80 metres out is somehow bad but 6 tackles from 10 metres out is not a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is with all the fucking question marks and exclamation points? Settle down son.

It's a decent strategy for a team that doesn't let opposition make 60+ metres per set.