Oh, and this mind set that everything has to revolve around "a" playmaker, I am not sure if that is actually the case anymore.
The best description I have seen for the way the ABs play is from the NRL and called "contract football"
Swap "NRL" for the "Wobs" and .........
How many times last night was it Barrett or Cruden that the play revolved about? To me those decisions are spread throughout the side and that makes it much harder to break down
I think this is a fantastic point.
Whenever our team performs at a level that isn't of the standard deemed "appropriate" by "fans", the 10 is always the first to be blamed, especially if that attack isn't on song.
But should this be the case?
Looking at the BIL vs. AB game from last night, which was an absolutely outstanding test match with fantastic skills across the park, how often did their 10s feature in the attacking master class that was shown?
Not often. Offence is no longer the domain of a 'play maker' and why should it be? Imagine if we relied exclusively on Foley or Cooper to provide spark in attack and they had an off game? The team would be compromised.
All of the fantastic pieces last night in the BIL vs. ABs game were the result of "contract" football whereby every player took ownership of the offence.
I'm sick of every poor performance being blamed on a lack of spark / structure being provided by Foley / Cooper / (insert name here). What about the other 14 players on the field?
Edit: our best attacking pieces were actually a result of "contract" rugby:
+ Naivalu's 1st try: Genia recognised an opportunity and took a quick tap, sent it wide to Foley who sent it wide to Horne. Horne drew two defenders and gave a great pass to Naivalu, who turned on the after burners.
+ Folau's 1st try: came off some nice interplay by the whole team following Foley's inside ball to DHP off the lineout. Good decision making from Coleman, Horne etc. sucks in defenders and allows Genia to exhaust the short side with a pass to DHP, who draws and passes and puts Folau through in the corner. NO
+ Folau's 2nd try: Hunt slides into second play maker and throws Stephen Moore a settler in the midfield. He takes the ball to the line and identifies space outside him. He throws a beautiful cut-out pass to Folau on the outside who strolls in for the try. Fulfilling his role as second play maker well (which is a compliment, not a substitution, for Foley's role).
+ Naivalu's 2nd try: Genia scutters across field and meets defenders. He transfers this pressure to his outside men (probably not the best decision but alls well that ends well) by throwing Foley a nothing pass. Foley puts it between his legs to DHP with great awareness, DHP takes the ball to the line, draws two defenders before offloading to Hunt, who throws a cut out to Naivalu who strolls in.
+ Foleys try: Genia gives it to Foley, who squares in attack and takes the ball to the line whilst looking inside for Hanigan. This commits the defender to Hanigan and he goes over from about 7m out.
+ Hodges try: Powell gives the ball to Carter, who gives it to Quade on a second man play. Quade gives it to Foley who takes the line on, commits 2-3 defenders before giving it outside to DHP in space (DHPs defender had to come in to cover Foley). DHP runs into space, draws a tackler and gives it to Hodge, who turns on the after burners and the rest is history.
So Foley touched the ball in:
+ 4 of our 6 tries (including the one he scored).
+ He also set up the linebreak that directly lead to our second try.
But more importantly, many many players touch the ball in these tries and it was largely a group effort. These were largely great tries and they were really just simply stuff (as the ABs do so well). Identify opportunity, draw and pass, draw and pass, try.
Thats the attack we should be looking for, not wonderous cut outs and inside balls and no look passes and huge steps.