PRE-GAME Round 13 - Rabbitohs vs Broncos

[WASSHHH]

We’ll win tonight, Coates with a double (one long range).

 

[Sproj]

When I watch them play I dont necessarily think that it's a lack of trust, but moreso about confusion on what's required.

In his first interview Seibold mentioned that he doesn't want to play structured footy rather he wants the team to play heads up.

To me that is trying to get the players to read and react to what's going on in front of them, such as knowing when and where to run a decoy or be a lead runner, the team reading the defensive numbers to know where an overlap is, runs specifically to get a quick ptb, seeing the fullback up in the line and kicking behind, kicking early while the wingers are up, etc.

When the Broncos put this into practice I see a lot of flat footed forwards or players standing in the line waiting for a pass to come to them, rather than fluid movements across the field and players running onto the ball or targetted runs to exploit defences... it's like there's too much onus on the players to just know what is required of them on the field, so they have a million thoughts going through their head, but don't do any of them except "give me the ball".

To be able to play that kind of football you need some form of basic structure... the players need something to fall back on and to understand the reason why they need to do something on the field... you also need smart footy players across the park and potentially this team is full of physical athletes or natural talents rather than smart footy players and Seibold is trying to teach them when all they've ever had to do is catch it and run over the player in front of them. You get footy smarts as you play and understand the game

I would say the storm and roosters play like the above, they will hit certain parts of the field and the second there is a deficiency in the defensive line the whole team is in position to exploit it. To me the best example of this is the storm's play when the ptb is close to the goal line... there are middle forwards hitting gaps in the defence for a pass straight from CS9 (they're not even crash balls, because they know if they get the ball they're going to score and they know CS9 will get them the ball when it is on)... if the short ball isn't on CS9 will use them as lead runners and get it wide quickly to Munster who puts on a simple play to exploit it... even when it's not on out wide he'll hit the edge forward or centre (whoever has lapsed in the defensive line) for a 1v1 and quick ptb to load up again.

It's almost like option plays in NBA or NFL... every man knows they're an option and they run their line, and you leave it in the hands of the playmakers to make the right pass.

Right now it looks like every man in the Broncos think they're an option, but they don't execute anything to give the playmaker something to work with... it's all clunky

I would say he's not done a good enough job of simplifying the players role ... he's trying to turn them all into CS9, but in reality they need to run they basics until it's drilled into their head and then expand their game from there.

He does need some smarts in his spine though, they need to be able to identify and execute when there are deficiencies in the defence

Yep heads up footy is great but you need a structure to still fall back on when things aren't going well. It is effectively a defense when the attack is spluttering or getting annihilated. They don't have that and this is entirely on the coach because there are glaring errors that are just not being fixed, this is then compounded by players being in different positions week in and week out because the coach has a whim that week.

 

[abashii]

Heads up footy doesn't mean you don't need any plans or structure. It means you run your plays according to what you see and react to situations as they occur.

 

[ostin86]

When I watch them play I dont necessarily think that it's a lack of trust, but moreso about confusion on what's required.

In his first interview Seibold mentioned that he doesn't want to play structured footy rather he wants the team to play heads up.

To me that is trying to get the players to read and react to what's going on in front of them, such as knowing when and where to run a decoy or be a lead runner, the team reading the defensive numbers to know where an overlap is, runs specifically to get a quick ptb, seeing the fullback up in the line and kicking behind, kicking early while the wingers are up, etc.

When the Broncos put this into practice I see a lot of flat footed forwards or players standing in the line waiting for a pass to come to them, rather than fluid movements across the field and players running onto the ball or targetted runs to exploit defences... it's like there's too much onus on the players to just know what is required of them on the field, so they have a million thoughts going through their head, but don't do any of them except "give me the ball".

To be able to play that kind of football you need some form of basic structure... the players need something to fall back on and to understand the reason why they need to do something on the field... you also need smart footy players across the park and potentially this team is full of physical athletes or natural talents rather than smart footy players and Seibold is trying to teach them when all they've ever had to do is catch it and run over the player in front of them. You get footy smarts as you play and understand the game

I would say the storm and roosters play like the above, they will hit certain parts of the field and the second there is a deficiency in the defensive line the whole team is in position to exploit it. To me the best example of this is the storm's play when the ptb is close to the goal line... there are middle forwards hitting gaps in the defence for a pass straight from CS9 (they're not even crash balls, because they know if they get the ball they're going to score and they know CS9 will get them the ball when it is on)... if the short ball isn't on CS9 will use them as lead runners and get it wide quickly to Munster who puts on a simple play to exploit it... even when it's not on out wide he'll hit the edge forward or centre (whoever has lapsed in the defensive line) for a 1v1 and quick ptb to load up again.

It's almost like option plays in NBA or NFL... every man knows they're an option and they run their line, and you leave it in the hands of the playmakers to make the right pass.

Right now it looks like every man in the Broncos think they're an option, but they don't execute anything to give the playmaker something to work with... it's all clunky

I would say he's not done a good enough job of simplifying the players role ... he's trying to turn them all into CS9, but in reality they need to run they basics until it's drilled into their head and then expand their game from there.

He does need some smarts in his spine though, they need to be able to identify and execute when there are deficiencies in the defence

Good observations. Maybe Seibold just wasn't a good fit for our young side. South's were playing some excellent football in 2018 under him but they were a lot more experienced than our group.

 

[Sproj]

Heads up footy doesn't mean you don't need any plans or structure. It means you run your plays according to what you see and react to situations as they occur.

The Roosters are the best at this in my opinion but they also have an amazing structure behind them that allows them to do this. If a heads up play doesn't work, you go back to knowing where your runners are going to be, your decoys are going and pack running. The Roosters are experts at this.

 

[rnabokov]

It's not about them not wanting to change, it's about them being able to see bullshit a mile away.

There is an onus on a player, any player to communicate what they think and feel to their coach. It's fundamental to making anything work. Otherwise, the whole enterprise fails. No coach can succeed if his players won't talk to him. Failing to do so, and then deliberately failing on the field is equivalent to white-anting the coach, and saying "**** you" to the fans. It's frankly despicable, unprofessional and childish.

And it means precisely that they don't want to change, unless it's on their terms. Like I said, we have the tail wagging the dog. Is that what we want and need?

 

[rnabokov]

When I watch them play I dont necessarily think that it's a lack of trust, but moreso about confusion on what's required.

In his first interview Seibold mentioned that he doesn't want to play structured footy rather he wants the team to play heads up.

To me that is trying to get the players to read and react to what's going on in front of them, such as knowing when and where to run a decoy or be a lead runner, the team reading the defensive numbers to know where an overlap is, runs specifically to get a quick ptb, seeing the fullback up in the line and kicking behind, kicking early while the wingers are up, etc.

When the Broncos put this into practice I see a lot of flat footed forwards or players standing in the line waiting for a pass to come to them, rather than fluid movements across the field and players running onto the ball or targetted runs to exploit defences... it's like there's too much onus on the players to just know what is required of them on the field, so they have a million thoughts going through their head, but don't do any of them except "give me the ball".

To be able to play that kind of football you need some form of basic structure... the players need something to fall back on and to understand the reason why they need to do something on the field... you also need smart footy players across the park and potentially this team is full of physical athletes or natural talents rather than smart footy players and Seibold is trying to teach them when all they've ever had to do is catch it and run over the player in front of them. You get footy smarts as you play and understand the game

I would say the storm and roosters play like the above, they will hit certain parts of the field and the second there is a deficiency in the defensive line the whole team is in position to exploit it. To me the best example of this is the storm's play when the ptb is close to the goal line... there are middle forwards hitting gaps in the defence for a pass straight from CS9 (they're not even crash balls, because they know if they get the ball they're going to score and they know CS9 will get them the ball when it is on)... if the short ball isn't on CS9 will use them as lead runners and get it wide quickly to Munster who puts on a simple play to exploit it... even when it's not on out wide he'll hit the edge forward or centre (whoever has lapsed in the defensive line) for a 1v1 and quick ptb to load up again.

It's almost like option plays in NBA or NFL... every man knows they're an option and they run their line, and you leave it in the hands of the playmakers to make the right pass.

Right now it looks like every man in the Broncos think they're an option, but they don't execute anything to give the playmaker something to work with... it's all clunky

I would say he's not done a good enough job of simplifying the players role ... he's trying to turn them all into CS9, but in reality they need to run they basics until it's drilled into their head and then expand their game from there.

He does need some smarts in his spine though, they need to be able to identify and execute when there are deficiencies in the defence

What you say is spot on. 100%. However, context is needed as well.

It is important to realise that to get to the level of what the Storm and Roosters do so well takes time. A lot of time. More than 18 months, and more than 18 months with an injury ravaged squad full of inexperienced talent, a few disgruntled senior players and a troubled spine which is partly the result of poor recruitment.

I am not making excuses for Seibold but looking for cogent reasons why we have this mess. I hope tonight shows that we are on the road to reversing it.

 

[abashii]

There is an onus on a player, any player to communicate what they think and feel to their coach. It's fundamental to making anything work. Otherwise, the whole enterprise fails. No coach can succeed if his players won't talk to him. Failing to do so, and then deliberately failing on the field is equivalent to white-anting the coach, and saying "**** you" to the fans. It's frankly despicable, unprofessional and childish.

And it means precisely that they don't want to change, unless it's on their terms. Like I said, we have the tail wagging the dog. Is that what we want and need?

Who's refusing to talk to the coach? Who's deliberately failing on the field? Extraordinary claims like that deserve at least a modicum of evidence.

 

[rnabokov]

Who's refusing to talk to the coach? Who's deliberately failing on the field? Extraordinary claims like that deserve at least a modicum of evidence.

I was responding to the goat. As for failing on the field, do I really need to answer the obvious? I'll do a short list anyway: Boyd, Milford, Oates

 

[abashii]

I was responding to the goat. As for failing on the field, do I really need to answer the obvious?

Yes. What you might consider obvious doesn't necessarily tally with anyone else's opinion on the matter. You can assert player/s are deliberately failing on the field - that's one hell of a claim and one I'd like to see backed up with substantial evidence, especially since players going in and out of form is a regular occurrence.

Assuming that was the case you'd probably also then best look into why a supposed supercoach would be unwilling to drop a player who people well outside the team can see is deliberately failing on the field.

 

[rnabokov]

Yes. What you might consider obvious doesn't necessarily tally with anyone else's opinion on the matter. You can assert player/s are deliberately failing on the field - that's one hell of a claim and one I'd like to see backed up with substantial evidence, especially since players going in and out of form is a regular occurrence.

Assuming that was the case you'd probably also then best look into why a supposed supercoach would be unwilling to drop a player who people well outside the team can see is deliberately failing on the field.

By deliberate failure, I mean a conspicuous lack of effort, commitment and attitude which seems to have been rather extensively canvassed in these threads.

On field performances equate to the substantial evidence you seek. Boyd is one case in point and his conspicuous form reversal last week when returned to his preferred position as FB.

I also think there is enough information around, also discussed in these threads, which establishes some players don't like Seibold and that for mine is reflected in their on field performances as well.

 

[McHunt]

Assuming that was the case you'd probably also then best look into why a supposed supercoach would be unwilling to drop a player who people well outside the team can see is deliberately failing on the field.

My theory is Boyd and Milford both train well, but don’t give 100% in the games. Why they don’t is another vector of speculation.

 

[Sproj]

My theory is Boyd and Milford both train well, but don’t give 100% in the games. Why they don’t is another vector of speculation.

Boyd definitely trains well but Milf? Come on man, the evidence is the opposite.

 

[cento]

I think this game comes down to boyd if he plays well we will win if he plays shit like normal we will lose

 

[broncsgoat]

There is an onus on a player, any player to communicate what they think and feel to their coach. It's fundamental to making anything work. Otherwise, the whole enterprise fails. No coach can succeed if his players won't talk to him. Failing to do so, and then deliberately failing on the field is equivalent to white-anting the coach, and saying "**** you" to the fans. It's frankly despicable, unprofessional and childish.

And it means precisely that they don't want to change, unless it's on their terms. Like I said, we have the tail wagging the dog. Is that what we want and need?

Roberts communicated what he thought and got shit canned.

 

[McHunt]

Alfie’s a naughty boy:

“The Club became aware of the matter today involving football staff Allan Langer, Ryan Whitley and Blake Duncan, and contacted the NRL immediately,” the statement said. “As a precaution, those staff have been placed on “COVID Holds”, and will undergo testing before returning to the Project Apollo bubble.

“To adhere to best practice, the staff members won’t travel for tonight’s game in Sydney against the Rabbitohs.

 

[abashii]

By deliberate failure, I mean a conspicuous lack of effort, commitment and attitude which seems to have been rather extensively canvassed in these threads.

On field performances equate to the substantial evidence you seek. Boyd is one case in point and his conspicuous form reversal last week when returned to his preferred position as FB.

I also think there is enough information around, also discussed in these threads, which establishes some players don't like Seibold and that for mine is reflected in their on field performances as well.

I don't buy that. Conspicuous and deliberate are two very, very different words. Seibold's failings as a coach are conspicuous; would you say they are deliberate? Continually picking a player who was obviously struggling last year was one of many very obvious flaws. Do you think he was purposely trying to do a poor job?

 

[McHunt]

Boyd definitely trains well but Milf? Come on man, the evidence is the opposite.

I mean at training he looks the best in his position.