Form... in or out of form...

In one way or another, form is mentioned a lot on these boards.

It may be whether a team is picked on form v's previous performances, or it may be player XYZ is currently out of form, or even whether form is important when compared to class.

However the bit I'm interested in is how you determine whether a player is currently out of form, and what can be done about it.
In particular, I've started thinking about this in relation to Ben Foden's claim for the England full back shirt.

A lot of people on this board have said that they would like to see him back for England, but that he is currently out of form..... but what does that mean?
He's obviously got the same / similar speed and skill set that he had 12 months, and he also understands the game just as well as he used to.
The only difference that I can see is that he may be making different decisions since he has come back from injury.

I'm sure most of us have had injuries at one time or another, and have noticed that you sometimes play slightly differently to try to protect yourselves from being injured in the same way again.
Is that the same thing as being out of form?


I think it's probably a combination of making of different decisions, and potentially having the confidence to back yourself in every aspect of your play.
i.e. pre-injury you may be willing to back your own pace to be able to outrun someone on the outside, whereas post injury, as a full back, maybe the better option is to kick to touch.

It is often said that confidence influences these decisions.

I therefore wonder whether picking Foden for England would help to boost his confidence and therefore get him back to where we want him to be.
If his confidence is boosted by being picked for the National team, then surely he may be more inclined to trust his natural instincts, therefore making the right decision, and therefore no longer be 'out of form'.



As a final note, the old adage of 'form is temporary and class is permanent' has always confused me when used in conjunction of 'picking a team on form'.
It's true that World Class players will always rise to the top, and even with their dips in temporary form, they will always be classy players.
However, picking players on form is always contrary to selecting a stable team, and picking class players.
Brian O'Driscoll has been a World Class player and is the personification of the 'class is permanent' phrase.
Would you therefore drop BOD if he has 2 average/poor games? What if he has 5 or 6?... where do you draw the line?

Obviously, making these decisions is what separates a top class coach from a us internet posters.

This is a good point BUT how do you judge form etc. and in what context?Club,HC,Super,Test rugby are all at different levels a classic case was Jonny Wilkinson.A fit JW was an automatic choice for both England and Lions BUT
he had so many injuries post 2003 RWC.He was the shadow of the player he once was,he adapted nearly everything his tackling/kicking style etc.
Since then he has been good to great at certain levels in my opinion at Test level he has never been the same.In RWC 2011 Martin Johnson picked him to kick the goals he did`nt,England post RWC with different style and 10 were progressing.Come RWC England went back to 2003/7 mode and were turgid at best JW `s time had gone.

If you have a player who has served is team well in the past then I think its only fair that a coach shows a bit of loyalty if the same player has a bit of dip in form but you can't keep doing it indefinately.

One recent example is Howleys continued selection of picking Priestland whilst he was so clearly of form, this in itself heaped more pressure on Priestland which, unfortunately for him he failed to deal with.

It is interesting to read what members on this board and other forums consider form or off form.

Great thread idea.
For me, form is equivalent to consistency of performance. And for our better players, usually internationals and seasoned pros, this means consistent high performance. A 'dip in form' is a drop-off in performance. Not just for a match or two, but over a period of time. Any athlete can have a poor match, play in a match which does not allow them to show their talent, or play with injury.

And that takes me to Foden. I think when 'on form' he is one of the best fullbacks in England, or at least has been up to now. However, he had significant damage to certain ankle ligaments. The scope of the injury was not simple, nor were the procedures simple. Recovery, especially in the ankle is long, and in his specific case difficult and extremely painful. Clearly he is not the same player as before the injury. And this is not a surprise. When I saw the initial diagnosis, I thought he might not be back to his usual level of play until the spring. I also thought it put his Lions chance in jeopardy, which is a shame because he is terrific player and would have done credit to the Lions jersey.

If we watch him run closely, he is still missing the initial push off the right foot as well as his ability to make the quick cut and side step at pace which is a big part of him game. This is also not surprising because this takes a long time to heal properly, strength must be rebuilt, and the fast muscles must be retrained. It also has an impact on the opposite leg. During the recovery the off-leg is not being trained as would be normal. And, logically, it slows the full recovery when playing week in and week out. Unfortunately, this is a reality of professional sport and Rugby is not unique here, and neither better nor worse.