Is it all down to Lee Blackett?

[wasps]

I wouldn't dare post this on the other site... I wouldn't like to guess what kind of assumptions some people would make from my comments that have absolutely no evidence.


I'm wondering if Lee Blackett is the root cause of everything that has happened over the last few years.

He same along with an excellent record of coaching in the championship, and as I recall, our attack immediately starting looking better with him on board. Our moves were initially slow and behind the gain line, but gradually we improved and they became faster, slicker and flatter.

We then lost Brad Davis.... Which always felt rather weird to me

Cips comes along and undoubtedly, our already excellent attack went up a notch, but we were never defensively solid.

Phil Blake seemed unable to instill any kind of defensive organisation in the team, or at least nothing that would last longer than a game or 2.

And now we are where we are.


Balancing attack and defence is never easy. If one coach has too much sway with the style, it can often ruin the other components.

Could it be that Lee Blackett's approach which previously reaped such dividends was also causing our defensive organisation to be a shambles?
Could it be that Davis and Blake were unable to create a defensive transition that worked with Blackett's attacking strategies, and that Blackett had no intention of compromising?


As I say, I have absolutely no evidence for this at all, just wondering if he has overseen and overruled everything and has caused these defensive problems

[Vespula Vulgaris]

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis.

There have been many examples that could back it up, games with excellent attacking flair and terrible defence, and the converse, games with amazing defence, but little to no ability to attack. As if our systems were indeed incompatible.

I don't know if Blackett is the culprit, but I strongly suggest that those teams that do the best have coaches whose approaches mesh well, and ours do not and have not for years.

[BG]

I think too much emphasis is placed at the feet of coaches. they aren't the ones on the pitch. In terms of attacking play the coach can invent some of the most brilliant and intricate moves but if the execution is poor then pre-planned moves will always fail.

My position was 9 and from an early age i realised my pass to 10 was paramout to any pre-planned move.. it had to be in front of the running 10 into the breadbasket.. if it was shoulder high, down by his knees.. even behind him, then the whole move would fail as the 10 would have to re-adjust.

In terms of defence, again, every player will know how to tackle but to tackle you need to be in the right position on the field or positinoally agaist your opposite player. This can be affected by fitness. Lapses in concentration also comes from being under pressure ruck after ruck. Whether its intentional or not we seem to use a passive type defence system, rarely competing at  rucks with players not committing to either winning the ball or at the very least slowing it down. We rely on the attacking team to make a mistake rather than us forcing them into a mistake.

What I've noticed with Wasps is that 9 and 10 often find themselves in unfamiliar terroritory.. i.e. being hidden from the first line of defense either acting as a 2nd 15 or out on the wing which I'm not a fan of because if Wasps win a turnover our 2 playmakers aren't anywhere near the ball when its turned over.


Due to injuries, new signings, international call ups we've had to employ a revolving door selection policy in the backs.. it takes time to build up almost telepathic relationships in the backs. The 8, 9, 10, 12 axis is effectively the spine of the team where we've had very little consistency

It will get better