Re: It all in the Plannng
- From: "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:59:25 -0000
"Richard Bridgman" <rhb919@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:cf27110c-113b-4ff7-9643-b5ae0bb8e3bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 6, 8:20 am, Klitty <mitti...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Bridgman <rhb...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Dec 6, 8:01 am, Klitty <mitti...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> caspar milquetoast <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > On 06/12/2010 10:26 AM, northshoreguynz wrote:
>> >> "Former England coach Brian Ashton has heaped praise on the All >> >> Blacks
>> >> saying their flexible approach to rugby is what puts them ahead of
>> >> their opponents.
>> >> In his column for the Independent newspaper Ashton, who coached
>> >> England at the last Rugby World Cup, wrote that the All Blacks staff
>> >> are thinking differently about rugby compared to their one >> >> dimensional
>> >> opponents."
>> >> Not entirely sure if this is right. A well executed Plan A, if it
>> >> involves a very strong 10 man game is actually hard to beat. Not
>> >> pretty to watch unless you wore nos1-5 on your back. But it has won
>> >> the last 2 RWCs.
>> > Absolutely. You can't fault England's Plan A of sneaking over a lucky
>> > drop goal in the last seconds of extra time in 2003. And South >> > Africa's
>> > Plan A of getting to play Argentina and England was flawless!
>> There was nothing at all "lucky" about that drop goal. They played for
>> the position, got that position and planted it.
> Really? Well then somebody needs to have words with the planner. Why
> they would play 120 minutes of rugby leading up to that, running the
> risk of Australia snatching the game at any point, only to land the
> well planned for DG in the last minute is beyond me. Was it out of a
> sense of fairness to Australia? Was it to make the contest more
> entertaining? I suppose we'll never know. They should have planned to
> score 8 tries in the 1st half, 7 in the 2nd half and that way everyone
> could have got on the scoresheet.
> Richard Bridgman
That reply from you was totally and utterly ridiculous.
By your reckoning everything planned should work out all the time.
Errr...no, pretty sure I haven't said any such thing. There are
scenarios and situations you plan for, they're called options. And
yes, in this case, the right option with the try line miles away and
seconds remaining was to try the dg. The point I was trying to make
was that all their plans they had tried for the prior 120 minutes
hadn't won them the game, had they? The whole bloody thing came down
to a long drop goal, which by anbody's standard is risky and involves
a lot of luck.
No. You make plans and sometimes, depending on various parameters, they
work out. Luck can come into whether the plan works or doesnt work of
course. The plans are not "lets hope we get lucky". They are things
like, carry the ball, get into position, marshall the back line, stand
the fly half further back, get the ball to him hoping he has enough time
to do his stuff if that practciced precisions etc of the pass is up to
it and let him have a crack at goal. This is not "luck".
Oh good grief. Really? Wow, and here's me thinking the drop-goal
really was a bizarre fluke where he was actually about to set off on a
run, but dropped the ball by mistake and by sheer luck it hit the
ground, bounced off his foot and went over for three points. Don't be
an idiot, of course the drop-goal was intentional, but that doesn't
mean there wasn't luck involved. The luck is in that it came off. If
you've ever tried a dg yourself, you'd know there is a serious amount
of luck involved, in many ways the very fact you make the attempt is
admitting that normal *less risky* channels aren't working and so you
throw caution to the wind, let fly and hope for a bit of luck.
When you're talking about the Wilkinson mentality of 2003, probably less than 1% of his successful drop-goal was down to luck.
The players set him up perfectly, slowly moving the ball a few yards closer to the posts and gave him every chance to score it. I think if we'd carried on carrying the ball fowards, we'd have ended up with a penalty anyway - the Aussies would have done anything to stop a try. And if he'd missed, we were on for a drop-goal "penalty shootout" which Wilkinson would have won.
I look at it as if we had a penalty advantage, and nothing to lose. I reckon the drop-goal (considering the protection our forwards gave the ball, Dawson's perfect pass to Wilkinson and Wilkinson's form at the time) was the *least* risky option.
I'm not trying to gloat about the win, or elevate Woodward/Wilkinson/squad to sainthood, but that RWC was just one of those moments when everything just came together perfectly for England, almost a pre-destined air about it. Don't know if I'll ever see it again in my lifetime though.
- Prev by Date: Re: It all in the Plannng
- Next by Date: Re: It all in the Plannng
- Previous by thread: Re: It all in the Plannng
- Next by thread: Re: It all in the Plannng