POST GAME Qualifying Final - Broncos vs Cowboys

[Rally Towel]

It is also not really fun footy to watch for fans - constantly defending the goal line, and having a couple of shots inside the 20, each half. Who the **** really wants to watch that everytime we play a top 5 side?

Sure we are winning, for now. But who really wants to watch that sort of footy?

A fair point to some degree. It's not exactly the most convincing victory if we spend much of the game on the ropes absorbing blow after blow, while making the most of very limited attacking opportunities.

However, our season hasn't been solely defined by this style of victory. Plenty of times we've taken out to the opposition and showed attacking class in spades.

We're not fluking our way to wins on the back of limited attack and desperate defence. We've shown fluent attack and determined defence as the situation warrants all season long. Until Friday's effort becomes the rule rather than the exception, I'm not concerned at all.

 

[mitch222]

Loved Blair's work on the weekend. He did what a lot of other broncos players wouldn't do, ruffle Thurston every chance he got. We need a bloke in our team like this who has no loyalty to other teams players. I always feel the broncos players especially QLD reps treat Thurston, Smith, Cronk etc with a bit too much respect when playing them and refuse to niggle them. Blair got under Thurstons skin all night with his constant pressure and in the end forced him to make a bad kick in the 80th minute which sealed the game.
Defence wins premierships and that defence on Saturday night was premiership winning defence. The cowboys didn't play awful, we earned that win.

 

[broncos4life]

Thurston doesn't mind a whinge does he?

 

[jarro65]

Thurston doesn't mind a whinge does he?

No, he really doesn't ... and to come to Blairs defense, i think Thurston held onto him after Blair hit him with that tackle.

It looked a lot like Thurston was playing for the penalty for a late shot.

 

[Battler]

Loved Blair's work on the weekend. He did what a lot of other broncos players wouldn't do, ruffle Thurston every chance he got. We need a bloke in our team like this who has no loyalty to other teams players. I always feel the broncos players especially QLD reps treat Thurston, Smith, Cronk etc with a bit too much respect when playing them and refuse to niggle them. Blair got under Thurstons skin all night with his constant pressure and in the end forced him to make a bad kick in the 80th minute which sealed the game.
Defence wins premierships and that defence on Saturday night was premiership winning defence. The cowboys didn't play awful, we earned that win.

Blair's been massive for us. If he played for the rorters they'd be talking him up as being better than Graham (which he is).

 

[lynx000]

I am still struggling to comprehend how the defensive structure works so effectively because it appears to be completely counter-intuitive to what league experts and supporters have believed for years. The accepted thinking is for you to have a fast moving and disciplined defensive line and cut down on your opposition's time, that is the most effective defence.

Instead we allow easy metres, get rolled back and spend a lot of time defending in our 20 maximising the opportunities for the opposition to score. It should not work, I can't figure out how it does.

 

[BroncO(SM)]

+1 for the Adam Blair Fan Club.

Yes he's playing brilliantly in both defence and attack (usually as first receiver).......but I went last week to watch the lads train for the first time and one thing which really stood out for me on the day was how much of an influence Blair has on the team morale.

Got a chance to chat with Wayne after about it too and he mentioned that unlike a lot of the other NRL players that try and look tough, Blair is a genuine tough bastard, hence why he has so much respect amongst the boys.

 

[Morkel]

I am still struggling to comprehend how the defensive structure works so effectively because it appears to be complete counter-intuitive to what league experts and supporters have believed for years. The accepted thinking is for you to have a fast moving and disciplined defensive line and cut down on your opposition's time, that is the most effective defence.

Instead we allow easy metres, get rolled back and spend a lot of time defending in our 20 maximising the opportunities for the opposition to score. It should not work, I can't figure out how it does.

The same way that getting repeat sets often results in points - it's not because you simply have more plays, but because each one wears out the defenders. It always looks fluid to a spectator, like everyone is on their toes and at peak speed, but it's far from the case. The forwards in particular are buggered, up & back, up & back. Each movement off the line gets a tenth slower than the last one, each effort to wrap up the ball sucks up more energy. If you can be as fresh as possible when defending your line, it makes a massive difference, and that's what the "wait for the runner" achieves. Each metre they don't move up, is actually two metres saved. If they concede one metre more per play, it's therefore two metres less for the defensive line. Concede 10 metres more in a set and it's 20 metres saved. The proof is in the pudding I guess.

 

[BroncO(SM)]

I am still struggling to comprehend how the defensive structure works so effectively because it appears to be complete counter-intuitive to what league experts and supporters have believed for years. The accepted thinking is for you to have a fast moving and disciplined defensive line and cut down on your opposition's time, that is the most effective defence.

Instead we allow easy metres, get rolled back and spend a lot of time defending in our 20 maximising the opportunities for the opposition to score. It should not work, I can't figure out how it does.

I don't think it's an intentional tactic and I don't think we necessarily allow easy metres.....it's merely a result of not having a big dominating forward pack.

Thankfully, our strength is that we are a fairly mobile pack, hence why our goal line scramble is better than most (if not all) others.

I do think against either the Roosters or the Dogs, we need to step up and be better at limiting their momentum.

 

[Stix]

I don't think it's an intentional tactic and I don't think we necessarily allow easy metres.....it's merely a result of not having a big dominating forward pack.

Thankfully, our strength is that we are a fairly mobile pack, hence why our goal line scramble is better than most (if not all) others.

I do think against either the Roosters or the Dogs, we need to step up and be better at limiting their momentum.

A mixture of both is how we beet the roosters early in the season, we stood back and absorbed the initial Roosters power game tactics and then got up in their faces with some good hits when it was time to assert some pressure. With our week off we'll be in a good position to do the same thing given our forwards should have fresh legs. Thaiday and Blair will come into their own in this one.

 

[BroncO(SM)]

A mixture of both is how we beet the roosters early in the season, we stood back and absorbed the initial Roosters power game tactics and then got up in their faces with some good hits when it was time to assert some pressure. With our week off we'll be in a good position to do the same thing given our forwards should have fresh legs. Thaiday and Blair will come into their own in this one.

Yep here's hoping!

Also hoping they belt the living shit out of each other this week with a nice mix of injuries and suspensions for the eventual winner......

 

[rnabokov]

The same way that getting repeat sets often results in points - it's not because you simply have more plays, but because each one wears out the defenders. It always looks fluid to a spectator, like everyone is on their toes and at peak speed, but it's far from the case. The forwards in particular are buggered, up & back, up & back. Each movement off the line gets a tenth slower than the last one, each effort to wrap up the ball sucks up more energy. If you can be as fresh as possible when defending your line, it makes a massive difference, and that's what the "wait for the runner" achieves. Each metre they don't move up, is actually two metres saved. If they concede one metre more per play, it's therefore two metres less for the defensive line. Concede 10 metres more in a set and it's 20 metres saved. The proof is in the pudding I guess.

My take on this is that sacrificing field position against a team with a good kicking game and a number of strike payers means there is always the risk of 3 things:

First, the opposition is more likely to get repeat sets from short kicks behind the line, and line drop outs which means extra tackling and very tired defenders;

Second, the risk of a defensive error on your line - especially as individual tacklers tire more, means a greater chance of them scoring a try.

Third, your opportunities for scoring are reduced as you are constantly embedded deep in your own half.

While the proof of the pudding so far is that it tastes great, I am starting to feel a bit queasy when I watch our team constantly defending in our red zone and during finals football when both the stakes are a lot higher and the opposition a lot more determined.

I am particularly concerned about a player like Jennings. If his opposite is just that tiny bit slow, he's gone past him and they score. To me that's an unnecessary risk.

I've always been an advocate of "in your face" offensive defence as we showed v Roosters in the 1st game: it adds to confidence as well as forcing errors when the opposition is sat back on their arses in the middle third.

 

[uptheguts]

Yeah I've noticed that, defending players are getting penalised for trying to stop attacking players for moving a meter forward to play the ball...good point

Of course that will apply doubly to the Bronco .In the old days it was called walking off the mark and an instant penalty ,and it still should be.

 

[uptheguts]

My take on this is that sacrificing field position against a team with a good kicking game and a number of strike payers means there is always the risk of 3 things:

First, the opposition is more likely to get repeat sets from short kicks behind the line, and line drop outs which means extra tackling and very tired defenders;

Second, the risk of a defensive error on your line - especially as individual tacklers tire more, means a greater chance of them scoring a try.

Third, your opportunities for scoring are reduced as you are constantly embedded deep in your own half.

While the proof of the pudding so far is that it tastes great, I am starting to feel a bit queasy when I watch our team constantly defending in our red zone and during finals football when both the stakes are a lot higher and the opposition a lot more determined.

I am particularly concerned about a player like Jennings. If his opposite is just that tiny bit slow, he's gone past him and they score. To me that's an unnecessary risk.

I've always been an advocate of "in your face" offensive defence as we showed v Roosters in the 1st game: it adds to confidence as well as forcing errors when the opposition is sat back on their arses in the middle third.

I totally agree. Plus it's not much fun watching your team constantly defending their line and only getting a few shots at the oppositions line . I don't think footy is meant to be that hard for either the players or spectators. We simply have to make more of a consented effort to stop our opponents getting into our 40 . But I am staring to think that may be we just can't.

 

[Super Freak]

It's working and it has been all season, so I'm fine with it.

People said we can't beat a top team with that kind of defence.. Well, we just did.

And if Dodds and Kahu don't make those errors, we win that game against the Roosters.

 

[Porthoz]

A fair point to some degree. It's not exactly the most convincing victory if we spend much of the game on the ropes absorbing blow after blow, while making the most of very limited attacking opportunities.

However, our season hasn't been solely defined by this style of victory. Plenty of times we've taken out to the opposition and showed attacking class in spades.

We're not fluking our way to wins on the back of limited attack and desperate defence. We've shown fluent attack and determined defence as the situation warrants all season long. Until Friday's effort becomes the rule rather than the exception, I'm not concerned at all.

While we're not fluking our way to wins, and we've shown some mesmerising attacking footy this season, we definitely have very much done so on the back of limited attack and desperate defense, at least against the better teams. However, the Manly game in Brookvale was a perfect example of what can happen against a slick attacking team (even if all the stars were aligned for them, with incredibly flukey stuff, especially from Jamie Lyon), when you keep offering them field position.

The tactic works pretty well against most teams in the comp, but I still have a lot of reservations whether we can consistently withstand constant pressure from teams like Storm, Roosters or Cowboys.

An interesting stat this season is that on average, we only concede a try after 19 tackles in our 20, while we score after 7.5 tackles in the opposition 20.

Like [MENTION=2065]lynx000[/MENTION] said, it's counter-intuitive, but it is working. Maybe Wayne's ahead of the rest of us, and preparing the team for a future with less interchanges... :noidea:

 

[Morkel]

While we're not fluking our way to wins, and we've shown some mesmerising attacking footy this season, we definitely have very much done so on the back of limited attack and desperate defense, at least against the better teams. However, the Manly game in Brookvale was a perfect example of what can happen against a slick attacking team (even if all the stars were aligned for them, with incredibly flukey stuff, especially from Jamie Lyon), when you keep offering them field position.

The tactic works pretty well against most teams in the comp, but I still have a lot of reservations whether we can consistently withstand constant pressure from teams like Storm, Roosters or Cowboys.

An interesting stat this season is that on average, we only concede a try after 19 tackles in our 20, while we score after 7.5 tackles in the opposition 20.

Like [MENTION=2065]lynx000[/MENTION] said, it's counter-intuitive, but it is working. Maybe Wayne's ahead of the rest of us, and preparing the team for a future with less interchanges... :noidea:

Of all the teams, you'd think a fired up Cowboys in a semi would be up there for attacking firepower. Crushed it.

 

[rnabokov]

Aside from Thurston and Morgan, I don't really rate the Cowboys attack much at all against a quality defence like ours. I think our defence is capable of closing down their outside backs ok. Mind you, if you give Thurston and Morgan individually too many chances in your red one, that IS playing Russian Roulette and sooner than later, the loaded gun will go off.

Closing down the edges and outside backs seems to be a cornerstone of our current defensive structure atm which is well and good. I just can't see that it is an acceptable risk in finals footy against a team with a good short kicking game and serious speed out wide.

However, we will soon find out...