Coaching

[1910]

We're arguing two different things then. I'm not bagging the coaches' ability, I'm saying that the gameplan, the attack-orientated, high-risk, play-as-you-see-it style, will not translate to the NRL as much as people might think. Hence the comment about playmakers. Their skills might be perfect in the ISC where defensive lines are not as impenetrable, but not in the NRL. Defensive structures are far more rigid for that style to work, especially when you say something about losing 50 metres by running backwards in the hope that you can then score a 100 metre try. To do so would require high-risk plays and if it fails, you're gifting the opposition field position and a smaller, more skilled team will be no match for some regulation big men on your own line.

As for me being negative about the ISC, I don't know how to say this with tact, but it's inferior to the NRL. It certainly has its place, and I respect that it has traditions in Queensland going way back before the NSWRL invaded, but the harsh truth is its best relevance to the NRL and the Broncos (which is the topic of this forum) is as a feeder system and a second-grade comp for fringe first-graders. And when you say "ISC produced", that is why I can't take you seriously on discussions regarding the comp. "Produced" suggests it has been the defining factor in developing and advancing player's skills and abilities, which is simply not true for the vast majority of our players.

Tell me, how many of the players in our 17 played in the ISC without a Broncos contract? All I can think of is Reed and maybe Gillett IIRC. The rest of them were always contracted to the Broncos and were played in the competition when they were no longer eligible for the NYC or had progressed passed the standard of that comp and were being played against more hardened, older opposition as better prep for the NRL. Or to gain confidence or return from injury in an environment not as cut-throat. To suggest otherwise is just twisting facts.

Everyone knows it is the level below NRL; I don’t know why you’re stating this like you’re providing some sort of revolutionary insight. Shield cricket is below the standard of Test cricket- but it’s still great to watch and still produces great players and cricket. The QRL is pretty content with the role the ISC is playing and continues to evolve and get better. The fact they beat Penrith last year and won the Residents mean they’re doing something pretty right.

That’s not true of the current Broncos; Boyd (Bears), Glenn (Bears), Blair (Norths), Reed (Norths), Gillett (Norths), Stagg (Redcliffe), Garbutt (Easts), Ofahengaue (Jets), Parcell (Jets), Wallace (Norths), Dodds (Wynnum), Waddell (Souths) all have played for a ISC club before getting a Broncos’ contract. Five of which played yesterday. As well as all but one, having played ISC at some stage in their career.

Then of course you’re forgetting that some played for ISC clubs but didn’t get to ISC level before winning an NRL contract McGuire, Maranta, Nikorima and Molo played lower grades for Norths.

There is a whole big wide world out there before the NRL that yes is producing NRL players. I think you're one of those people that think players just morphed into NRL players one night and don't really think they had to come from somewhere. You do know ISC clubs have grades down to Under 16's U18's, Colts, Reserve grade?

Shane was clearly using hyperbole to make his point- I have never seen them run back 50 meters, his point was clearly we don’t buy into the whole he made 98m and he made 150m the second guy must be awesome. Roosters won a premiership with the worst completion rate in the competition for that year which is Shane’s point, you can be successful and play football without having to maintain KPI’s.

You've making the mistake of thinking it's ad lib football, it's not it is practised and rehearsed to get it right with a very specific tactic involved.

Ben and Shane aren’t focused on attack over defence; yesterday they scored 36 points but they spoke after the game in the press conference about the two tries they let in.

It’s a bit like trying to convince someone to like a music genre, pretty hard to do. If you like robotic, three up the middle for a second man play, kick to the corners we hit our 75% completion then that’s fine. I like watching football and skill.

September is the final frontier for Ben and Shane, they’ve made the finals four years in row now with their skills approach and not boring robotic football, they’ve impressed NRL clubs and coaches with their approach and football brains but be nice to top it off with some trophies.

 

[rogerwilco]

Ben and Shane Walker are working well and you would be crazy to not consider them. Personal opinion here, but am NRL team should pick them up.

 

[Patto7]

We're arguing two different things then. I'm not bagging the coaches' ability, I'm saying that the gameplan, the attack-orientated, high-risk, play-as-you-see-it style, will not translate to the NRL as much as people might think. Hence the comment about playmakers. Their skills might be perfect in the ISC where defensive lines are not as impenetrable, but not in the NRL. Defensive structures are far more rigid for that style to work, especially when you say something about losing 50 metres by running backwards in the hope that you can then score a 100 metre try. To do so would require high-risk plays and if it fails, you're gifting the opposition field position and a smaller, more skilled team will be no match for some regulation big men on your own line.

As for me being negative about the ISC, I don't know how to say this with tact, but it's inferior to the NRL. It certainly has its place, and I respect that it has traditions in Queensland going way back before the NSWRL invaded, but the harsh truth is its best relevance to the NRL and the Broncos (which is the topic of this forum) is as a feeder system and a second-grade comp for fringe first-graders. And when you say "ISC produced", that is why I can't take you seriously on discussions regarding the comp. "Produced" suggests it has been the defining factor in developing and advancing player's skills and abilities, which is simply not true for the vast majority of our players.

Tell me, how many of the players in our 17 played in the ISC without a Broncos contract? All I can think of is Reed and maybe Gillett IIRC. The rest of them were always contracted to the Broncos and were played in the competition when they were no longer eligible for the NYC or had progressed passed the standard of that comp and were being played against more hardened, older opposition as better prep for the NRL. Or to gain confidence or return from injury in an environment not as cut-throat. To suggest otherwise is just twisting facts.

You look at the best coaches in the game, Hasler and Maguire in particular (and also Bennett even though some seem to disagree), and there ability to adapt their game plan as their roster at their disposal, and the way the game is played, changes is one main thing that sets them apart from other coaches. 1910's already made the point that their game plan came about because of the roster they had, not necessarily some pre disposition to coaching a back dominated game plan as they have. That out of the box tactical thinking they seem to have in common with the best coaches in the game is what indicates they may make good NRL coaches not that high-risk play-as-you-see-it style. The point being with an NRL roster playing against NRL opposition every week I would say they would likely use that thinking to work out the style of football that will win them NRL games not automatically revert to they way they are playing at the Jets.

 

[Morkel]

You look at the best coaches in the game, Hasler and Maguire in particular (and also Bennett even though some seem to disagree), and there ability to adapt their game plan as their roster at their disposal, and the way the game is played, changes is one main thing that sets them apart from other coaches. 1910's already made the point that their game plan came about because of the roster they had, not necessarily some pre disposition to coaching a back dominated game plan as they have. That out of the box tactical thinking they seem to have in common with the best coaches in the game is what indicates they may make good NRL coaches not that high-risk play-as-you-see-it style. The point being with an NRL roster playing against NRL opposition every week I would say they would likely use that thinking to work out the style of football that will win them NRL games not automatically revert to they way they are playing at the Jets.

You make a good point, but again I'm just always skeptical. Hasler would probably be the pick of those in terms of adapting coaching styles to suit the players they inherited. Maguire simply copied Bellamy and surrounded a couple of absolute superstars with players that had limited but clearly defined roles.

We'll never really know with the Walker brothers until they're thrown in the deep end with a different roster. Which is probably why looking to use them as assistant coaches would be the smart bet. I do admire them for their ballsy clean-slate thinking, but I keep coming back to the fact that they'd never be allowed to take that sort of risk in the NRL.

And as I suspected [MENTION=8272]1910[/MENTION], "all but one" were not "produced" by the ISC, at least not in how you were hoping it to be taken. Obviously there are different tiers of competition that players work through, but IMO, for a player to be "produced" by a lower-tier comp would suggest that they were not as good as their similarly-aged peers and only learned and developed suitable skills through a thorough apprenticeship. It would appear that the vast majority of our team were only in the ISC because the NYC didn't yet exist, they were too young for it (and played for a lower-grade of an ISC club), or they'd outgrown the ISC and were waiting to get their shot in the NRL. Admittedly they would have been "developing" in the ISC, as it is much closer to NRL level than the NYC, but that isn't the same as "produced". The only two I would put in that category would be Reed and Gillett, both of whom were effectively unknowns (despite Gillett playing some U20s for us) until their performances for their ISC clubs matched up with an opportunity with the Broncos.

And apologies if the comment about the players "being happy with losses" was insulting. It was a response to your post where you said that the Broncos players who played for the Jets loved it, and I immediately thought of a player like Sandow who would relish it. Of course players would, it sounds like it was much more fun, they're able to showcase their skills, etc. But I would prefer our players to play dour, percentage football if that's what it takes to win at the highest levels. Not chip kicks here, dodgy shoulder charges there, three field goals, self-gratification, and then losing the game by 11 points. Which as you made clear is not the case.

 

[Dexter]

WB coached contract football at Souths Brisbane during the 80s. All 3 grades played that style and I remember it was very hard to play against.

 

[1910]

And as I suspected @1910, "all but one" were not "produced" by the ISC, at least not in how you were hoping it to be taken. Obviously there are different tiers of competition that players work through, but IMO, for a player to be "produced" by a lower-tier comp would suggest that they were not as good as their similarly-aged peers and only learned and developed suitable skills through a thorough apprenticeship. It would appear that the vast majority of our team were only in the ISC because the NYC didn't yet exist, they were too young for it (and played for a lower-grade of an ISC club), or they'd outgrown the ISC and were waiting to get their shot in the NRL. Admittedly they would have been "developing" in the ISC, as it is much closer to NRL level than the NYC, but that isn't the same as "produced". The only two I would put in that category would be Reed and Gillett, both of whom were effectively unknowns (despite Gillett playing some U20s for us) until their performances for their ISC clubs matched up with an opportunity with the Broncos.

Sorry haven't got back to this.

So if I am understanding you, you're claiming that for example Boyd and Glenn- both played all their junior football on the Coast went through the grades at the Bears, to ISC then got picked up by the Broncos- That's not a production and development of the Bears?

 

[Morkel]

Sorry haven't got back to this.

So if I am understanding you, you're claiming that for example Boyd and Glenn- both played all their junior football on the Coast went through the grades at the Bears, to ISC then got picked up by the Broncos- That's not a production and development of the Bears?

It's a production & development of the Bears, but not the ISC. Or is your claim that if the ISC wasn't there, Queensland would have no second-tier comp and therefore the Bears wouldn't exist?

 

[1910]

It's a production & development of the Bears, but not the ISC. Or is your claim that if the ISC wasn't there, Queensland would have no second-tier comp and therefore the Bears wouldn't exist?

They're a ISC club, if they do something well then the ISC is doing it as well. Similar if the "NRL was great this weekend or NRL produces great talent." no one says hang on Parramatta produces great talent.

Did the Bears use their QRL grant to produce Boyd or Glenn? Did they use gate receipts or sponsorship from ISC? Of course they did.

 

[Morkel]

They're a ISC club, if they do something well then the ISC is doing it as well. Similar if the "NRL was great this weekend or NRL produces great talent." no one says hang on Parramatta produces great talent.

Did the Bears use their QRL grant to produce Boyd or Glenn? Did they use gate receipts or sponsorship from ISC? Of course they did.

I get it, you're saying that the resources that the ISC gives to the ISC clubs (financial and otherwise) contributes to player development. Yes, of course it does, but saying that the ISC "developed" these players is very misleading, and that's where I have the issue. It suggests that the competition was the decisive factor in their development. Which it wasn't. Like I said, Reed definitely, Gillett to a fair degree. All but one from that weekend's team? Sorry, can't agree.

 

[1910]

Kent is having a crack at figuring out the Jets tomorrow in the Telegraph.

 

[1910]

THE Ipswich Jets, in the Queensland Cup, are about to change the way rugby league is played.
The Jets do not use block plays, an attacking move used ad nauseam among all 16 NRL clubs right now.
They never wrestle in defence. Indeed, they prefer to let their opposition have quick play-the-balls, again in direct contrast to the NRL way.


They kick-off short every time instead of driving the ball deep for a big front-rower to hit it up against them.
Every dropout is also short, even though it leaves teams attacking their tryline.
They don’t care about completion rates. They sometimes run backwards and often run sideways, with the full blessing of their coaches Ben and Shane Walker.
Whatever is considered standard thinking in the NRL there is a fair chance the Jets do the opposite.
But here’s the thing: despite spending about a third on their salaries as what North Queensland Cowboys feeder club, the Townsville Blackhawks, do, which naturally suggests their talent is not as deep, and despite playing a form of football that is the total opposite of the considered way to play in the NRL, the Jets share the competition lead.
And they are the most exciting team in the competition.
So you have to ask yourself the question: are the Jets so successful despite the way they play, or because of it?
“We play a very different style to anyone, anywhere,” Ben Walker said.
Along with his brother Shane, the Walkers have gone back to what renowned Toowoomba coach Duncan Thompson called “contract football”.
The entire coaching philosophy is deliberate.
The Jets are coached this way. More, the Walker brothers are turning conventional thinking upside down.
The golden rule to the Jets’ success is not completion rates, which every NRL coach quotes in his post-match press conference, but time in possession.


“The completion one is an interesting one,” Ben says.
“I’ve gone back through the years and done completions for every team for every game. I did this two years ago when we started using this style.
“Cronulla, one year, had the highest completion rate for the season but they ran, it might have been, second last.
“You don’t win games by completing sets.”
Of far greater importance, Walker says, is time with the ball.
“That is the only stat that we worry about other than the scoreboard,” he says.
It sounds far too basic, but the Walker brothers have identified the other truth.
They know teams fatigue far quicker defending rather attacking, long considered a rugby league
In fact, it’s why most coaches cite “completions” as a determining factor in the result.


But it is time, not completions, that is the biggest
Let’s take a look at the recent Origin game in Sydney, which most believe was a dour, if intense, contest, where precious little football was played as both teams worked through their sets.
NSW finished the game with a staggering 91 per cent completion rate. This is nearly enough to win two football games.
Queensland was not far behind at 85 per cent.
Importantly, though, Queensland came out on top in time in possession, 54 per cent to 46 per cent.
And had the ball in their hand at the end when it came time to win it.
“That’s why I don’t care if I see our guys running backwards or sideways, as long as we’ve got the ball there’s not much chance of them scoring.”


It’s why the Walker brothers got rid of their wrestling coach four years ago, just a season into the job.
Wrestling, they realised, was counterproductive to what they were trying to achieve.
Last weekend the Jets tackled a Souths Logan player just off his tryline. They jumped up quickly and let him play the ball.
“It enables the opposition to roll through the set really quickly,” Walker says.
“They have five hit-ups and kick to our corner and think they’ve had a good set.
“The reality is they’ve rolled through in 30 seconds and then we get it and we hold on to it for a minute or more.
“So we’re encouraging quick play-the-balls against us.”
Eventually, Walker says, the opposition’s lungs go first. And then they come at them with angles and second phase play that takes advantage of the fatigued defence.
The Walkers also see kick restarts differently.


Most kick-offs, he says, go deep for a front-rower to return, where he usually makes it to the 20m line. The Jets kick short and contest the ball.
“If we don’t get it back they get tackled 35m off the tryline,” he says.
“So we’re losing only 15m but we’re better than a 50 per cent chance of getting the ball back.”
The Jets kicked off five times in Saturday’s 50-20 win over the Magpies but got the ball back four times, justifying the decision.
Even dropouts are the same, with another hidden benefit.
“It’s actually easier to defend your tryline, from your tryline, than from 20m out,” he says.
To say nothing of the times you get the ball back.
The Walker brothers have been coaching the Jets with this philosophy since taking the job five seasons ago, but finally let loose in round five last year.



It is against almost every considered tenant of NRL football, but Walker has no doubt it would transfer to NRL level.
Their success against the Blackhawks, who boast several NRL players, showed that.
What’s lacking is the courage of coaches to go against the grain of considered thinking, which would invite criticism.
Better to fail quietly than try to win gloriously.
“The game is played like it is [in the NRL] now because no-one is game to step outside the line,” Walker says.
“But I know it would work in the NRL because the way we play is precisely the way train.”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/paul-kent-ipswich-jets-are-changing-the-way-rugby-league-is-played/story-fnp0lyn3-1227380230376

 

[Mosyzlak]

Some very interesting points and you'd have to say that when a team is down by with a shrinking amount of time to gain the points necessary to win this is almost the exact style of football a lot of teams revert to. Short kickoffs, running sideways, even backwards and passing the ball to a player in better position. It's rougher looking than if they were coached to do it. very interesting!

How have the Jets gone in the 5 years that the Walker brothers have had them?

 

[1910]

Some very interesting points and you'd have to say that when a team is down by with a shrinking amount of time to gain the points necessary to win this is almost the exact style of football a lot of teams revert to. Short kickoffs, running sideways, even backwards and passing the ball to a player in better position. It's rougher looking than if they were coached to do it. very interesting!

How have the Jets gone in the 5 years that the Walker brothers have had them?

It's not five full seasons, they took over second last round of 2010. Jets finished last with five wins.

2011- 5th with 11 wins (First week of finals)
2012- 4th with 13 wins (First week of finals)
2013- 5th with 12 wins (Second week of finals)
2014- 5th with 14 wins (second week of finals)

Made the finals every year.

110 games, 64 wins and 7 draws.

 

[Splinter]

Wouldn't be surprised if WB is studying the way they play to see if any could be incorporated to the NRL when he is supposedly watching certain players at their games

 

[rnabokov]

It's really very simple, and a basic rule of any football code - the longer you hold the ball, the more chances you have to score, and the less chance the opposition has to score.

It's like the golden rule: if you have the gold you make the rules. In football, the ball is gold.

Equally, the more energy you spend, the less effective you are, and tackling expends huge amounts of energy.

It is also good sense to defend your try line than 20m out when there is more space and time for the unexpected to happen for one thing, as well as the obvious - a well planned and executed attacking play based on the extra space and time 20m out than being restricted to an area around the goal line.

I have always respected the basic simplicity and common sense of the Walker Brothers and have before posted they would make excellent assistants to Bennett

 

[ningnangnong]

In football, the ball is gold.

Haha, I can still remember my U/10s rugby union coach preaching this every week.

It has stuck in my mind.

 

[Dexter]

Wouldn't be surprised if WB is studying the way they play to see if any could be incorporated to the NRL when he is supposedly watching certain players at their games

Wb coached contract football at Souths during the 80's

 

[theshed]

I wonder if our poor line speed, no wrestling, but great try line defence is inspired by this mentality.

Let them make metres and have one or two players make the tackle. The rest of the team don't have to constantly run forward then jog back. They may get to our try line but we back ourselves to hold them out and our team has covered significantly less ground, and used less energy.

The opting for 2 points if we get penalties near goal seems counter intuitive at first but if we take the tap we get 1 set in their 30 (defending on tried line. No need for them to run) and have a small chance to get a try or repeat set. If we kick, we get 2 points and a set from our own half. Each tackle the opposition runs 5 metres forward and 10 metres back. That's at least another 75m (5 tackles) plus the kick off chase and kick return.

Maybe I'm over analysing but it would be interesting to know how much ground each our team covers in total (on the ball + off the ball) compared to our opponents.