Ideas for next season

First topic message reminder :

If you have an idea for a change, please put it on here, with a heading saying what aspect of the game it relates to, and then in detail what the idea is.

I think its definitely worth a go and should trial something like it in the summer but would like to hear others thoughts on it as well

I would be up for attributes, would help keep tactics shorter and specific I.e:

How to utilise the 3 key attributes
How to stop other team's attributes
3 key game.plan bullet points.

Would mean all tactics would be set.out the same and pretty simple to read.

Just revisited this thread now my season's over

I'm in favour of the attributes point, keen to see how it will actually be put into place but the idea itself makes a lot of sense to me

Thinking about foreign signings and cash, I'd be in favour of changing how cash is awarded as prize money, or limiting the impact of cash on foreigns.

The top performing sides are picking up the most cash at the end of the season, which is then helping them outbid others for the big signings in both foreigns and releases

Would it be possible to have PM'd bids for the initial 1/2 rounds of signings? Bids sent by PM to whoever is running it, the highest bidder for a player wins and means less of the over inflation which is just favouring the guys with most cash?

I'm in favour of Wasps getting a couple of free bids, I also think Luke could maybe be compensated given all of the injury/age related retirements he's suffered!

Really enjoying the league, so these aren't major issues if everyone disagrees, but just putting the idea out there

It's the risk you take signing older players unfortunately.

We've all been hammered in the past. I liked the idea of getting a free foreign bid for the same position.

I kind of agree with Pooly on retired players. I got rid of FDP quite cheaply for such a great player knowing he was going to retire.

Cant we give bottom 4 clubs a week or so where they can sign some players without everyone else bidding in, so they get first dibs on best available players?

Also to get more EQ in the game, why not allow each club to call up 2-4 players from their academy without spending money - all academies are producing some really good players and before anyone says that Saints academy is producing more and that is why I am suggesting it only Harry Mallinder made the u20 squad this time, whilst about 3-4 Worcester players did.

Maybe also stop the top teams taking academy players from bottom 4 clubs so they don't stockpile the EQ talent there?

Think the game should be about evening the playing field up and getting more EQ involved as that seems to be an issue of contention.

We can all bid on each other's academy players anyway so I can't see a real problem with that. Young EQ take years to come through so it's not going to help with any divide in EQ for years.

Youngsters come through far quicker now, look at how fast they come through from the u20 setup into first team squads - Ewels, Itoje, Mallinder, Deveto, Hill, Tomkins, McGuigan Genge, Clark, Packman, Will Homer, Hill, Chisholm, Will Owen - could go on and on. So wouldn't say it takes years to come through at all.

For me we should do more to get EQ into the game and help the bottom sides especially in this area, which is why I suggested the bigger teams shouldn't be able to bid on lower teams academy players as can just stockpile the most promising EQ players if you know the academy system well.

How many of those could you start in this league now though?

The players that would be bid on now are going to be 18/19 at push. It's going to take 2/3 years to get decent AP time and longer to be rated.

Hill has been in the game for about 3 years for example, is an England Int and I still wouldn't start him.

Just thinking out loud here two things that would or could help:

1. We could say have three bids for released players and five bids for academy age players. 

2. I know we upped the maximum numbers in the academy last season (or before), but we could lower the number for the 'normal' academy, and then have a 'senior' or 'development' academy/squad, which is essentially five extra squad places for EQ only players, under the age of, say, 23?

The only thing I will say against 5 specific academy bids is thats 60 signings a season so Eng u20 & Eng u18 all signed up in one season. The following year your looking at ENg u18s and Eng u16s all signed up and so on. Will get to the stage were you will have to be scouting 14/15 years old. There will be very few surprise EQ break throughs and your academy will be tied up with players whom you have very limited information for.

I'm also not sure on the developed academy. Harrison been an important player for Sarries this year. Under this system he would still be stockpiled in my academy though. Making a decision at 21 can be hard but helps spread the EQ around a bit as it doesnt always look worthwhile keeping these lads on and then all of a sudden they start flourishing after you let them go

I'll swap you for Itoje?

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:The only thing I will say against 5 specific academy bids is thats 60 signings a season so Eng u20 & Eng u18 all signed up in one season. The following year your looking at ENg u18s and Eng u16s all signed up and so on. Will get to the stage were you will have to be scouting 14/15 years old. There will be very few surprise EQ break throughs and your academy will be tied up with players whom you have very limited information for.

I'm also not sure on the developed academy. Harrison been an important player for Sarries this year. Under this system he would still be stockpiled in my academy though. Making a decision at 21 can be hard but helps spread the EQ around a bit as it doesnt always look worthwhile keeping these lads on and then all of a sudden they start flourishing after you let them go

I was only suggesting these from my point of view, being only in the bottom half of the league over the past few seasons. The one season I got my highest league position ultimately hurt my side in the longer run, as I missed out on good players through the draft system. Having a specific few bids for players in the lower placed teams would help, however I know we didn't want to go down the route of disparity in the number of bids each side had.

I don't really agree with having a draft system, I think using cash to bid for foreigns is the way to stick with.

As I mentioned above though, I would prefer PM'd bids, if someone outbids you then so be it, gets rid of the bidding wars and stops the system favouring the sides with the most cash, which inevitably seem to be the top teams

Fluxy wrote:

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:The only thing I will say against 5 specific academy bids is thats 60 signings a season so Eng u20 & Eng u18 all signed up in one season. The following year your looking at ENg u18s and Eng u16s all signed up and so on. Will get to the stage were you will have to be scouting 14/15 years old. There will be very few surprise EQ break throughs and your academy will be tied up with players whom you have very limited information for.

I'm also not sure on the developed academy. Harrison been an important player for Sarries this year. Under this system he would still be stockpiled in my academy though. Making a decision at 21 can be hard but helps spread the EQ around a bit as it doesnt always look worthwhile keeping these lads on and then all of a sudden they start flourishing after you let them go

I was only suggesting these from my point of view, being only in the bottom half of the league over the past few seasons. The one season I got my highest league position ultimately hurt my side in the longer run, as I missed out on good players through the draft system. Having a specific few bids for players in the lower placed teams would help, however I know we didn't want to go down the route of disparity in the number of bids each side had.

Just to expand on this idea, how about just two 'development' spots for those teams that qualify for the Challenge Cup?

I don't think there's a big enough gap between the side finishing 7th and the sides finishing 8th - 11th for their rules to be different

This might be too late, but could the sides who finish lower in the league have a larger squad of say 45. This would allow them to keep players who have potential but are out of academy age for a little bit longer.

Great shout Steve

Guys, I'm wanting to implement the attributes theme for the remaining games of the summer tournament. 

How I would want these to work during the season, that at the start of the season we can all pick three for attack and defence. Then in similar time periods of injuries throughout the season, each side can amend one for attack and defence. This for me would then follow similar lines of a side having to train as a group to make the attribute work and gain results for them on the pitch. This would also result in sides being able to perhaps keep one or two which they would be known for throughout the season, but also can allow some sides to play to strengths in particular conditions or opposition. 

If everyone can have a think about some attributes - I already have the following from Steve:
Excellent Blitz Defence
Excellent Drift Defence
Excellent Attacking Maul
Excellent Maul Defence 
Excellent Choke Tackle
Excellent Discipline
Excellent Backs Moves 
Excellent kick chase
Excellent phase attack
Excellent ruck work


I can draw up a page, and have something we can work with going forward. They don't have to be too specific, but neither too vague. 
Once we have a list, everyone can select three attributes for attacking and defending, and they will essentially be the starting blocks for the season. 

NB: Tactics will still be in place (possibly shortened to 400 words?), but attributes or characteristic would allow sides to gain an advantage, unless say the side they were playing had a characteristic which could negate the other. Eg attacking mauling vs defending mauling.

Is that 3 for attack and 3 for defence? Seems one too many to me, think we'll end up with teams negating each others attributes very regularly

I'd reduce it to 2 for each personally, but happy to go with the majority

As for attributes, what about the following

Excellent kicking for territory (might be too similar to kick chase though)
Excellent scrum
Excellent line out (could be combined)

I kind of agree mate, wanted a discussion on the point. Maybe two in both attack in defence, but you can only amend one attribute, when the time arrives?

Was going to suggest:

Bottom clubs, maybe let them have one less EQ starter or requirement in match day squad for matches outside the international windows.

Let bottom clubs pick up XX number of players from their academy for no £ so that they can ensure they get their best EQ in without a team with more money and higher up the table nabbing them.

Maybe have a draft of EQ for the bottom clubs where again they can pick up some EQ for free to make it a more even league overall.

When people mess up with their team selections I don't think they should get punished twice e.g. losing a player from match day 23 and then being deducted points in the league table. Either (i) lose the player from match day squad and that is the punishment as you will inevitably lose or (ii) let a replacement come in but deduct 2 points from the league table. Just think both is a little excessive.

If you have poop props, how do you have an excellent scrum?

I'm a bit confused with this tbh.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:If you have poop props, how do you have an excellent scrum?

I'm a bit confused with this tbh.

It wouldn't mean that you could beat someone else, however it would help toward getting areas of your side being more organised. Or it could help accentuate an area where you think your side is strong eg offloading.

Perhaps it'll be more clear when used but I don't really get it at this stage.

I think if you've got poor props having an excellent scrum attribute won't help, and I think we're all more likely to favour the player ratings anyway

However if you've got 2 decent front rows facing each other, rather than them being "evens in the scrum" the side with the excellent scrum attribute will have the advantage?

Thats the way I'm reading it anyway, worth a stab to see if it makes things more interesting

I just thought the attributes could be tactical or things youcan't tell from players.

Ie you can't tell if my pack will have a good maul but you can tell if they have a good scrum through personell.

Idea is just a twist to try and add an element of coaching into the game

Wrong Page

Havent seen too much of him Steve, but clear that Lions have a v good set piece - is he in the SA set up at all? Uhila the LH from Hurricanes has impressed me.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Perhaps it'll be more clear when used but I don't really get it at this stage.

I agree. Everyone has different opinions on players so don't see how it works.
Tbh don't think there is a dominant scrummager in world rugby now.

Cole came back from getting humiliated in Wc to handing out a few in 6n. McGrath improved out of sight and beat most but still had some awkward ones:

Sh wise beast and sio had great season but sio got ruined in June tests as did kepu.

Moody best LH in NZ and had poor
Moments as did argie scrum.

Rob Evans went from best lh in 6n to losing his place on nz tour

How do you rate front row currently ?
Has to be on form and currently hard to split many:

I don't think Breakdown - Turnover possession should be an attribute. It is too player based for me.

Steven_Sharks wrote:I don't think Breakdown - Turnover possession should be an attribute. It is too player based for me.

I see where that is coming from but is it not also an approach focus (ie going for turnovers is a different and largely incompatible approach to piling in numbers) and highly coachable?

Group skills like scrums and rucks and line outs are player dependent but also largely affected by coaching, and this can be seen at International and Club level and the difference between the two. Or just think of the Lions (GB+I) improving their scrum vs SA in 1997 with specific focus on it. I think it is inaccurate to say that you can tell how well a team will scrummage based purely on their players to be honest, and the same can really apply to any of the attributes Fluxy has suggested. Also none of them are purely coach/approach based. For every single one it is a mixed approach that matters at the highest level and so people should pick attributes that fit their personelle as well as their tactics. That would seem to be the whole point