POST GAME Round 12 - Broncos vs Sharks

[ChewThePhatt]

Genuine question...
Was Croft as crappy at the Storm as he's been with us?
I have some vague memories of being very impressed with his play down there.

He has been playing for a struggling coach and a team horribly out of form. Playing injured as well.
&
As @Huge pointed out, he's still only 22.

 

[Unbreakable]

Genuine question...
Was Croft as crappy at the Storm as he's been with us?

He wasn't great.

Here are his raw numbers:

2018 - 12 games, 3 tries, 10 forced drop outs, 2 try assists, 77 running metres per game
2019 - 22 games, 5 tries, 8 forced drop outs, 5 try assists, 60 running metres per game
2020 - 11 games, 1 try, 2 forced drop outs, 1 try assist, 49 running metres per game

 

[Huge]

He wasn't great.

Here are his raw numbers:

2018 - 12 games, 3 tries, 10 forced drop outs, 2 try assists, 77 running metres per game
2019 - 22 games, 5 tries, 8 forced drop outs, 5 try assists, 60 running metres per game
2020 - 11 games, 1 try, 2 forced drop outs, 1 try assist, 49 running metres per game

Mmmm, interesting. So in 18 he was 20, 19 21, and now 22. I wonder how those raw stats look when contrasted with others at the same ages. I'm glad you aren't in the chorus screaming for Croft's head. I also like Dearden but fear that any drop in performance will result in the same vilification Croft has received. It's very rare that young halfbacks continue to perform as well over a season as do their much older and more seasoned veteran compatriots. I don't remember any to be honest, it's usually rocks and diamonds.

 

[ChewThePhatt]

He wasn't great.

Here are his raw numbers:

2018 - 12 games, 3 tries, 10 forced drop outs, 2 try assists, 77 running metres per game
2019 - 22 games, 5 tries, 8 forced drop outs, 5 try assists, 60 running metres per game
2020 - 11 games, 1 try, 2 forced drop outs, 1 try assist, 49 running metres per game

Cheers mate.
I really can't disagree with you, those stats aren't incredible. Especially as he was playing under Smith & Bellamy... IMO though, they aren't shit either. Now the poor **** has been playing under Siebs with Milf & (until this week) Darius.

What I do remember liking about him (on the field) is that he was a high energy, committed, confident, cocky little fucker!

Traits not uncommon in some past champion halves.

The same traits that are (IMO) unsavory to people like Smith & Bellamy.

I'm with both @Huge & you on this one. Sure Dearden is probably our long term future, &.... he's 19yrs old ffs!
He needs to be nurtured, not burned.

For mine, Croft isn't a bust.
It's just that patience is a real **** when we just want to...
WIN FFS

 

[WASSHHH]

That's a bit harsh given we barely had the ball during the last 10 minutes. I thought Deardon and Milford combined really well last night and there were multiple times that played together on the same side or at least both had possession in the same movement. Just showed how unnecessary Croft is.Unfortunately the lost ball from the drop out was what cost us . We were building pressure and had possession.

Too harsh? Hardly.

How do you win games without the ball? By giving the opposition the ball where you want. Kick to a corner, make them work it out from there.

But as I’ve already said elsewhere, after close to 170 games, our unwilling to learn 6 still doesn’t know this and proceeds to loft nothing midfield bombs or grubbers that go dead in goal for seven tackle sets.

Easy outs for the opposition to get a roll on when they’re obviously going to chance their arm.

If you don’t agree, that’s fine. But if he hasn’t learnt this basic game management skill yet, he’s never going to.

 

[Huge]

Cheers mate.
I really can't disagree with you, those stats aren't incredible. Especially as he was playing under Smith & Bellamy... IMO though, they aren't shit either. Now the poor **** has been playing under Siebs with Milf & (until this week) Darius.

What I do remember liking about him (on the field) is that he was a high energy, committed, confident, cocky little fucker!

Traits not uncommon in some past champion halves.

The same traits that are (IMO) unsavory to people like Smith & Bellamy.

I'm with both @Huge & you on this one. Sure Dearden is probably our long term future, &.... he's 19yrs old ffs!
He needs to be nurtured, not burned.

For mine, Croft isn't a bust.
It's just that patience is a real **** when we just want to...
WIN FFS

So so true. It's said that patience is a virtue and in this on demand age it's in short supply. When he came to us I was happy and that hasn't changed. I believe that the heart of the problems at the Broncos is the notion that a rugby league side only needs talent and the eagerness of youth. However, every great side I've seen has been a blending of hard no nonsense experience and the exuberance of youth.

In fact most great sides seem to have three layers. The experienced champ(s), the journeymen who are lifted and the eager young. A rising tide lifts all boats.

It's those journeymen who are missing. Boyd's not at fault because he was abandoned by management who admittedly were obligated to use him. We needed to keep more middling players over the last 5 or so years. The kind of player I have in mind are ones like Kevin Campion. No, not him in particular but as an example of the kind.

I believe I was wrong about Ben Hunt. No two ways about it I wanted him gone but in my defence I'd claim I would have wanted him to stay IF he'd dealt with his demons publicly. That is to say he had to say it out loud that he was deeply scarred by his grand final fuckups. Threw them out onto the ground and crushed it. Took ownership and then discarded it.

Milford, ahh. For mine he should have only been given a two year deal and yes, that's hindsight. I believe the poor kid from Inala made financially secure became complacent. He knew the Broncos would never suffer the embarrassment of paying an ISC player a million a year. I could be wrong too about that.

He and Boyd were our seniors and a journeyman like Glenn was only extended because too late management realised the neccessary no nonsense seniors were all gone. We needed at least one senior winger, one senior centre, a seasoned halfback, two senior props and two journeyman secondrowers to compliment the younger in all those positions.

Management have failed us moreso than Boyd and to a greater extent, the complacent Milford.

 

[john1420]

It's a bullshit excuse to drop someone that's signed with another club.

Broncos are 3 wins out of the 8. And even if the chances of them making it are very very very slim, you don't stop trying. So you pick the best 17 and that includes Fifita. Even if there was no chance of making the finals, the objective then is to finish as high as possible, avoid the spoon. Again, you pick the best 17.

Not only that, but that's a pretty good way of pissing off players. Players we need to keep.

It's not a bullshit excuse SF, it's just a different opinion, a different focus.
My opinion is we should make decisions in the best interest of our future (2021).
Yours is we should try to make the best of 2020.
I'm not claiming to be right, and you wrong, because I don't believe there is a right/wrong here, just differing views. Each have positives and negatives.
I definitely see your point about pissing off other players, and yes that needs to be avoided.

 

[pagey]

Genuine question...
Was Croft as crappy at the Storm as he's been with us?
I have some vague memories of being very impressed with his play down there.

He has been playing for a struggling coach and a team horribly out of form. Playing injured as well.
&
As @Huge pointed out, he's still only 22.

Typically suffering from the storm syndrome, was made to look alot better than he is. Average player at best and is not the 7 we needed. Was totally against this signing and his performances are showing why.

 

[winslow_wong]

Typically suffering from the storm syndrome, was made to look alot better than he is. Average player at best and is not the 7 we needed. Was totally against this signing and his performances are showing why.

He’s good depth to cover for dearden.

 

[Huge]

Too harsh? Hardly.

How do you win games without the ball? By giving the opposition the ball where you want. Kick to a corner, make them work it out from there.

But as I’ve already said elsewhere, after close to 170 games, our unwilling to learn 6 still doesn’t know this and proceeds to loft nothing midfield bombs or grubbers that go dead in goal for seven tackle sets.

Easy outs for the opposition to get a roll on when they’re obviously going to chance their arm.

If you don’t agree, that’s fine. But if he hasn’t learnt this basic game management skill yet, he’s never going to.

Getting the football to consistently stop short of the deadball line when grubbering is extremely difficult I'm sure you'd agree and he did kick a sublime short kick for Isaako a couple games back. It's also true he needs to be better at it than he has been. I don't think the seven tackle thing is such an issue anymore in this age of 10+ tackle possessions.

The six again rule has made a seven tackle set now seem less significant. That said, it's terrible if it comes from a grubber however if a team is only 30-40 metres off their own goal line then kicking long and low towards the deadball line is not a bad result. If it goes dead, no biggie because the opposition is obligated to get their entire team back behind their 20 and if they're on your 30 at the time it's a real bonus. The other good thing is sometimes it will stop short of the deadball line, the optimal result if you can trap them. Even better it takes away the advantage that teams have with Tedesco types and great wingers with huge returns.

Finally it gives your team a spell and helps with rhythm and control. I'd encourage Milford to go for the deadball line when we haven't made many metres off our own line, when 30-40 metres out from our own line. Fine to bomb when in their territory but otherwise I think it's an under used tactic.

 

[Great white hope]

Too harsh? Hardly.

How do you win games without the ball? By giving the opposition the ball where you want. Kick to a corner, make them work it out from there.

But as I’ve already said elsewhere, after close to 170 games, our unwilling to learn 6 still doesn’t know this and proceeds to loft nothing midfield bombs or grubbers that go dead in goal for seven tackle sets.

Easy outs for the opposition to get a roll on when they’re obviously going to chance their arm.

If you don’t agree, that’s fine. But if he hasn’t learnt this basic game management skill yet, he’s never going to.

I agree Milford is not a great game manager and never has been. I think it was a flawed position by the club to try to turn and instinctive ball runner into an organise. I get that he could have kicked for touch and run time down,set defensive line etc. Milford hasn't been playing to his contract value however was a significant influence on our improved attack. In my opinion our biggest issue is the defence of our outside backs. Of the 3 late trys, 2 were die to wingers coming infield when there was no reason to. Communication between wingers and centres is poor. On the go ahead try Coates comes in on the centre that Staggs had easily covered. If he stays out that play shuts down. Players either dont trust each other or dont understand the defensive structure

 

[WASSHHH]

Getting the football to consistently stop short of the deadball line when grubbering is extremely difficult I'm sure you'd agree and he did kick a sublime short kick for Isaako a couple games back. It's also true he needs to be better at it than he has been. I don't think the seven tackle thing is such an issue anymore in this age of 10+ tackle possessions.

The six again rule has made a seven tackle set now seem less significant. That said, it's terrible if it comes from a grubber however if a team is only 30-40 metres off their own goal line then kicking long and low towards the deadball line is not a bad result. If it goes dead, no biggie because the opposition is obligated to get their entire team back behind their 20 and if they're on your 30 at the time it's a real bonus. The other good thing is sometimes it will stop short of the deadball line, the optimal result if you can trap them. Even better it takes away the advantage that teams have with Tedesco types and great wingers with huge returns.

Finally it gives your team a spell and helps with rhythm and control. I'd encourage Milford to go for the deadball line when we haven't made many metres off our own line, when 30-40 metres out from our own line. Fine to bomb when in their territory but otherwise I think it's an under used tactic.

Your comment is ignoring the context of the game and the original discussion point though.

With 10 minutes to go and an 8 point lead, the percentage play is to kick to a corner and make them work it out. If it goes over the sideline, even better - wind the clock down a little more, get the defence set at a scrum and make them work it out.

That’s how good halves close out games and that’s what Milford should be able to do by now. Moreover, elite halves (think Lockyer, Thurston) could do it game, after game, after game. It’s a big part of QLD’s origin dominance and conversely, why NSW could never strangle momentum back.

The sad thing is, I think Milford probably has the skill to do it, I just don’t think he has the football IQ to match.

 

[Huge]

Your comment is ignoring the context of the game and the original discussion point though.

With 10 minutes to go and an 8 point lead, the percentage play is to kick to a corner and make them work it out. If it goes over the sideline, even better - wind the clock down a little more, get the defence set at a scrum and make them work it out.

That’s how good halves close out games and that’s what Milford should be able to do by now. Moreover, elite halves (think Lockyer, Thurston) could do it game, after game, after game. It’s a big part of QLD’s origin dominance and conversely, why NSW could never strangle momentum back.

The sad thing is, I think Milford probably has the skill to do it, I just don’t think he has the football IQ to match.

I disagree I'm ignoring the context of the game and completely agree with you about the 8 point lead with 10 to go! I was simply adding to the discussion on game management in the broader context.

 

[HarryAllan7]

I think we saw some improvements in this game, but let's keep things in perspective...

On Friday, the Sharks fielded 9 players from the Newtown Jets 2019 Canterbury Cup Grand Final winning team.

Over 50% of the Sharks team was a reserve grade side last year. Perhaps that contributed to us looking better.

The stats for this game were interesting...

We outcompleted the Sharks (88% vs 79%)
We had more post-contact metres (656m vs 585m)
We had more linebreaks (9 vs 5)
and far more tackle breaks (46 vs 31)
We missed less tackles (31 vs 47)
and made less errors (7 vs 9)
and possession was (for once) close to 50/50

9/10 times, any team which wins this many significant statistical categories would also win the game. We did all the hard work to win, but just didn't capitalise on the opportunities.

Half lack of experience... half lack of confidence.

The most pleasing part of the entire game was our goal line defence for the first 30 mins of the second half - that sort of commitment, steel and effort has been sorely lacking this year and I hope we can use that to continue to build.

We have more troops returning over the coming weeks, and if we continue to improve as the cavalry arrives then hopefully we can at least be competitive over the last leg of the season and start building some momentum and positive foundations for future years.

The Good: Staggs, Dearden, Turpin, Farnworth and Boyd.

The Bad: Offahengaue (Offers nothing in attack, total liability in defence), Coates (edge defence is abysmal)

The Ugly: Haas (Solid effort as always, but poor goal line defence), Milford (One vintage moment, followed by completely lack of awareness or ability to control and close the game)

 

[abashii]

It's not a bullshit excuse SF, it's just a different opinion, a different focus.
My opinion is we should make decisions in the best interest of our future (2021).
Yours is we should try to make the best of 2020.
I'm not claiming to be right, and you wrong, because I don't believe there is a right/wrong here, just differing views. Each have positives and negatives.
I definitely see your point about pissing off other players, and yes that needs to be avoided.

I can see where you're coming from, but reckon playing Fifita is in our long-term best interest. He could be the difference between a win and a loss in several of our upcoming games. This year is a write-off but we'll still have plenty of these guys lining up for us next season and beyond. Do we want players who are confident they can get the job done, or players so down on confidence they keep snatcbing defeat from the jaws of victory? Harry's post below is bang on, do we want to see more like it next year too?

9/10 times, any team which wins this many significant statistical categories would also win the game. We did all the hard work to win, but just didn't capitalise on the opportunities.

Half lack of experience... half lack of confidence.

 

[john1420]

I can see where you're coming from, but reckon playing Fifita is in our long-term best interest. He could be the difference between a win and a loss in several of our upcoming games. This year is a write-off but we'll still have plenty of these guys lining up for us next season and beyond. Do we want players who are confident they can get the job done, or players so down on confidence they keep snatcbing defeat from the jaws of victory? Harry's post below is bang on, do we want to see more like it next year too?

I totally see both sides of the argument :)
The only thing that bothered me was the notion that 1 view was clearly correct and the other was childish and a bullshit excuse.
I can tell you this, if Fifi plays for us I'll be cheering him the hell on :)

 

[Wolfie]

Its not often i agree with the likes of the self confessed drug cheat peptide paul, but i do think he has a point. We are accepting mediocrity. We have people thinking only conceding 36 points in a game is a positive thing compared to other weeks, thinking playing a good half against Melbourne is a positive, thinking turning up for part of a game is an improvement. Its a load of rot. The coach is the issue. Our performances, structures, defensive efforts start with him. The sooner he is gone the better.

 

[Allo]

Its not often i agree with the likes of the self confessed drug cheat peptide paul, but i do think he has a point. We are accepting mediocrity. We have people thinking only conceding 36 points in a game is a positive thing compared to other weeks, thinking playing a good half against Melbourne is a positive, thinking turning up for part of a game is an improvement. Its a load of rot. The coach is the issue. Our performances, structures, defensive efforts start with him. The sooner he is gone the better.

Contextually it’s an improvement. People are just happy to see the effort being put in, which compared to the Tigers game, is clear that it’s beginning to happen.

Of course we’re not happy that it’s the best we are getting, but effort should result in defence = winning or close to it which is giving people a little bit of encouragement and hope