Bucking Beads
International Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 24,608
- 7,911
Coxy said:
I agree even in the warm ups he seemed lost.
Broncos Vs. Warriors - Match Thread
- Thread starter ningnangnong
- Start date
I agree even in the warm ups he seemed lost.
Professor47
NRL Player
- Mar 5, 2008
- 1,632
- 81
Coxy said:
Mmmm... During round 1 - all the youngsters looked the goods except Beale.
Don't want to brush him already but D is so crucial in the centres in today's game!!! - You don't want GI and Jennings to run rings around him... could be out of his depth for the big matches IMO.
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
I reckon we might see his return, not a bad thing I reckon he would of learned a lesson or two. His defence can't be worse than Beale anyway.
He is surely going to be seriously considered now with his experience because we now have 4 first choice players out and we are lacking experience big time. I hate to say it but he might add something.
He is surely going to be seriously considered now with his experience because we now have 4 first choice players out and we are lacking experience big time. I hate to say it but he might add something.
Yeah good stuff Bruno Cullen not wanting to make a play for Hannant. We need to get a couple of experienced blokes or even look at some blokes running around for our feeder clubs Ben Vaeau, James Stosic, Tim Natusch, Dave Hala (If his fitness is up to scratch), Mark Leafa. Bringing in a couple of 20's like Lingwoodock or Lui would be good but then we have the same problem players being inexperienced. Dodds might be a worker but a front rower who doesn't make metres is a waste of space on the field.
Can we sign Tim Smith and send Wallace to the Sharks? Seriously that guy offers nothing, he is solid at best. If he did not have Lockyer beside him he would be found out to be an average player.
Can we sign Tim Smith and send Wallace to the Sharks? Seriously that guy offers nothing, he is solid at best. If he did not have Lockyer beside him he would be found out to be an average player.
Bucking Beads
International Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 24,608
- 7,911
Mate these problems have been around for longer than 3 years IMO. Back in the Bennett days we seemed to get carved by the off loads. A few changes to the squad would be nice though. You can't get beat by 30 on your home track and not get punished surely.
- Mar 26, 2008
- 7,994
- 6,940
Having 2 injuries is no excuse, they had 2 off as well.
We lack aggression in D we don't dominate and therefore fail to slow down the play the ball or prevent offloads. All momentum is won or lost from the speed at the ruck.
Everything was off about our performance today, aggression, intensity, skill level, game plan.
I really fear some big spankings when we meet some of the more professional hard nosed sides in the next month.
We lack aggression in D we don't dominate and therefore fail to slow down the play the ball or prevent offloads. All momentum is won or lost from the speed at the ruck.
Everything was off about our performance today, aggression, intensity, skill level, game plan.
I really fear some big spankings when we meet some of the more professional hard nosed sides in the next month.
Professor47
NRL Player
- Mar 5, 2008
- 1,632
- 81
#1 Kemp fan said:
Have to agree with this one - the problem with D against offloads goes back into the S. Kelly era for sure!
On top of that --> We haven't had proper offloading/second phase play since Tallis left. We've got nice backline plays but we need a forward to get some quality second phase play going... not Parker styles.
On Wallace - I like him but he definitely has to work on his consistency.
- and I DO think we need a quality exp. forward (but maybe that is just me).
Prince Langer
NYC Player
- Mar 13, 2008
- 171
- 0
Played dumb Football
Soft forwards
Low on confidence
Horrible defence
No commitment
Soft forwards
Not prepared to put in some grunt
Wont fire up
Soft forwards
Injuries (not the reason for the loss as the Warriors were faced with the same problem but playing out of position doesnt help)
No patience
No hunger
Lacking experience
Shocking last play options
Terrible kicking game.
Dummy half work was woeful
Looked uncoordinated
Soft forwards
This pretty much sums up yesterdays game for me.
Soft forwards
Low on confidence
Horrible defence
No commitment
Soft forwards
Not prepared to put in some grunt
Wont fire up
Soft forwards
Injuries (not the reason for the loss as the Warriors were faced with the same problem but playing out of position doesnt help)
No patience
No hunger
Lacking experience
Shocking last play options
Terrible kicking game.
Dummy half work was woeful
Looked uncoordinated
Soft forwards
This pretty much sums up yesterdays game for me.
Major JW Hochstetter
NRL Player
- Mar 4, 2008
- 1,480
- 28
Nailed it Rocky, agreed 100%. Despite the turnover of players over the last 5 years or so, this is one problem that has stuck around with both 'experienced' players and youngsters. We just can't make an effective tackle to save ourselves.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
No side has a defence against a team hellbent on offloading. The Warriors have been doing that since their inception and as a rule have played the islander style hot potato first before playing the safety first approach. No team is immune, not even Melbourne and unsurprisingly Melbourne themselves are great at the offloading in tackles. What sets Melbourne apart is their ability to pick and choose which style suits. Tight and tough when required but free and easy when not.
What I'd be doing this week is drilling my forwards to start hitting lower on the ballcarrier and forget the ( ROCKY TAKE NOTE ) WRAPping up part.....naturally this seems to be at odds with normal thinking and doubtless the knee jerkers amongst us will be amazed by my statement. However, as anyone who reads my efforts would know I do think about the game and occasionally am correct.
Here's my reasoning: Big forwards running at the defence tend to be hit high in an effort to stop the offload.
When meeting the defence , and being hit high on the body, they tend to absorb the impact but remain upright. Quite often for upwards of 5 seconds while wrestling the tacklers. Consequently opportunities to offload are abundant.
Why change ? Well, big forwards charging the line and hit low around the rib/waist/hipline have both hands free but have very little time to offload, in fact less than a second before plowing into the turf. Against a team like the Warriors a plan like this will work. The player has so little time to offload and generally only in the one direction because he is falling from the moment the tackle has commenced. There is so little time to make a decision before he hits the deck.
Yes, some very easy offloads will occur but by severely limiting the opportunities we increase our chances.
Even if it did'nt work could it be any worse than watching our defenders, two and three deep around the attacker and watching as the ball is slipped to yet another player we clumsily attempt to wrap up high ???
What I'd be doing this week is drilling my forwards to start hitting lower on the ballcarrier and forget the ( ROCKY TAKE NOTE ) WRAPping up part.....naturally this seems to be at odds with normal thinking and doubtless the knee jerkers amongst us will be amazed by my statement. However, as anyone who reads my efforts would know I do think about the game and occasionally am correct.
Here's my reasoning: Big forwards running at the defence tend to be hit high in an effort to stop the offload.
When meeting the defence , and being hit high on the body, they tend to absorb the impact but remain upright. Quite often for upwards of 5 seconds while wrestling the tacklers. Consequently opportunities to offload are abundant.
Why change ? Well, big forwards charging the line and hit low around the rib/waist/hipline have both hands free but have very little time to offload, in fact less than a second before plowing into the turf. Against a team like the Warriors a plan like this will work. The player has so little time to offload and generally only in the one direction because he is falling from the moment the tackle has commenced. There is so little time to make a decision before he hits the deck.
Yes, some very easy offloads will occur but by severely limiting the opportunities we increase our chances.
Even if it did'nt work could it be any worse than watching our defenders, two and three deep around the attacker and watching as the ball is slipped to yet another player we clumsily attempt to wrap up high ???
Abe The Cop
QCup Player
- Mar 13, 2008
- 359
- 0
Yep I agree as well. Allowing offloads is our biggest problem, we've just been lucky that our scramblimg/cover defence has been good so we've been able to deal with it a lot of the time, otherwise scorlines like yesterday would be very common.
I don't think Wallace played that bad. When he was missing in last game of last season we did terrible. He's a good play and it's only game 3. First game he did fine. Everyone's going a bit insane at the moment when it's only game 3. All doom and gloom. I admit it's not great, but maybe after a few more games we can start declaring that the world is going to end.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
I actually rate Wallace highly, he however is not the problem. We did not lay a platform by first winning in the forwards. An old fashioned idea from WBs day. We seem to have forgotten the basics. Amazingly, St George seem to be remembering them and reaping the rewards.
It's not all doom and gloom but the future looks to contain some heavy losses and a tarnishing of our image.
It's not all doom and gloom but the future looks to contain some heavy losses and a tarnishing of our image.
