Quote ="Jukesays"The issue though is that a well drilled team will nearly always best an off the cuff team (See Australia 1972 to 2000) against GB
Weve tried to structure to match them and theyve moved on. And they will.co tongue to be in advance of us due to the advantageous they have over us from money to player pool currently.
I suppose the question is would be people like a less structured game at the expense of other things like Winning.
I believe that a reduction in substitutes to 6 will tire players enough to allow more time/space for ball players rather than what the game did 20 years ago increasing the substitutions to 10 to try and have the 13 players on the field playing at 100% of their abilities for 80mins.
There should always be a fatigue element in the game, it would be like giving boxers 10mins rest between each round and then wondering why just the biggest win/strongest win.'"
At the end of the day it's a team game, furthermore a squad game. To get the most out of the each play you all need to know what each person is doing and when they're doing it. So you employ set structures which allow a fluid team attack with accurate passing and movement and everyone know's what each person is doing. Additionally, if a structure is in place it makes it easier to replace injured or suspended players, as the new player knows the structure of the team and will have more chance of success slotting into a well drilled well structured team.
Additionally if a team is dependent on a half or two to create the play...what happens if the half is injured? A new half steps in and isn't as effective, meaning the team aren't half as effective.
The truth is that a player can be creative and play 'off the cuff' rugby when the time is right even within the structure, the team will never run the set plays for each and every set.
