POST GAME Round 8 - Rabbitohs vs Broncos

[Sasquatch75]

Relax ...... we are going awesome in the stats. ....... 2 from 25 but we will be 23 and 2 in stats ..... that’ll show em

 

[Yowie_Dude]

 

[lynx000]

Will remember this post.....

I responded that way because you pointed out other people shared the same view as someone whose opinion you value, an opinion you didn't or don't agree with. I would have thought that would give you a prompt to reconsider your own opinion instead of being surprised. At no point did I accuse you of claiming you are always right and in fact, I don't recollect anyone on this forum claiming that.

Only Wolfie

 

[Huge]

Only Wolfie

Snicker snicker. I don't think anybody's ever meant it then:naughty2:

 

[Wolfie]

Snicker snicker. I don't think anybody's ever meant it then:naughty2:

I did mean it!

 

[lynx000]

I did mean it!

He really did.

 

[Big Pete]

It would be easy to write off what happened the other night as just one of those nights, but we're eight weeks into the competition at this point and a pattern has well and truly emerged.

After 15 minutes, the scoreboard read 0 all but it was obvious from the eye test that Souths were the better side. They were playing the better brand of football, they were hitting harder in defence and their end of sets kicks were challenging the Broncos better.

Then it all began to unfold.

Corey Oates loses the ball in a fifty/fifty call. Oates could use the knee of the South Sydney player as an excuse and argue it should have been a penalty. At the end of the day, Gerard Sutton disagreed.

Then Alex Johnston loses the ball but manages to kick it. The Broncos could argue that since Jared Maxwell believed that Johnston lost the ball, then it had to be a knock on because the ball touched Roberts before hitting AJ's boot. However, Maxwell didn't see it that way.

Finally, Boyd could be excused because the ball happened to bounce on it's point and it completely beat him. In press conferences, the coaches always took about the dreaded bounce of the ball and how it's the bane of their existence.

In one moment, there were three excuses that could be made for the Broncos. Three reasons why Round 8 vs. South Sydney wasn't their night and the 'football gods' blessed Souths so they could celebrate the career of a future Rugby League Hall of Famer.

The problem is that excuses aren't good enough. If Oates had better ball security, if Roberts had have made a legitimate tackle, if Darius Boyd had have made a better effort to dive on the ball or if Pangai Jr competed for the ball, the Broncos would not have found themselves in that situation.

So often when teams are struggling it seems like every call or every bounce of the ball goes against them. In my view, when it comes to Rugby League you make your own luck. The opposition get more calls because they're the ones forcing the play and forcing the referee to make tough decisions. The opposition may get the lucky bounce because the players aren't doing a good enough job of defusing kicks. The sooner the Broncos realise they can control the game to a certain degree, the sooner they can play to the level most of the bookies had them playing.

Looking at the Broncos attack at the moment, I've been very disappointed with the way they construct their sets. Right now it's rare to see them throw anything other than a one out pass from dummy half. There's very little variation inside their own half of football which makes it incredibly easy for the defence to organise their defence. On Thursday night, Souths would stand shoulder to shoulder, get number into tackles and twist the Broncos with relative ease. Whenever the Broncos would try and spread the ball on tackle 4 or 5, it was easy for the defence to simply slide since Brisbane had done nothing to break their structures down.

On the flip-side, Souths were happy to play two passes wide of the ruck and play through their halves. Reynolds would turn a ball back on the inside to a charing forward. Then with the momentum, he may throw it wide to Murray would would they get Souths moving down on their edges and really get the Broncos defence back-peddling. It's something the Broncos haven't really done since Round 2 and it's clear they've gone back to incredibly basic structures.

I thought for an 18-year old, Dearden played as well as could be expected. However, the Broncos need a more assertive halfback, somebody who isn't afraid to get his hands on the football before play five. So far, it's difficult to see what changes Seibold has brought to the club, one of the few I've noticed is that sometimes you'll see Milford stand close to the ruck and try to play flat and direct. That's OK if you're up against tired opposition, but you need more out of your attack. There needs to be variety, an option a, b or c that keeps the defence guessing. Right now, there's option a and whether the defence is simply good enough to stop it.

This isn't all on the halves either. If you look at Cronulla in 2016, it wasn't the James Maloney show, the truth was they had so many options they just knew somebody could pull something out. Whether it was Barba, Holmes, Bird, Townsend, Ennis, Fifita, Graham, Lewis, Gallen there were players looking to create. I don't see that at the Broncos at the moment. Bird is one of the few players who isn't playing like a robot and nobody is going with him. Pangai is capable but looks completely lost. Outside of Milford, everybody just appears to be on auto-pilot and it's just so easy for the defence to put two-three defenders on him at all time, knowing full well nobody else is going to stand up.

Forget Round 7 or even Round 9 if the Broncos mange to pull out a win. This game is a true reflection of where the club is at and until they start to play a better brand of football, they're not going to win a premiership this year, next year, or any year. Fans can point fingers, blaming the previous coaching administration, but the bottom line is that Seibold has to fix these performances one way or another.

 

[Alec]

You're right Pete, there was little variations in our sets. I must have said it a few times during the live match thread, but you can use the classic Gus Gould line about our attack - "You can throw a blanket over them". So many times in our own half everyone was bunched up together in the middle of the field. Souffs pretty much had no trouble picking us off. By the time they reluctantly spread out on tackle 4 or 5, it was too predictable.

I keep coming back to that Craig Wing article from earlier in the year, where he was talking about our shape. If you don't have players lined up on both sides of the field, giving yourself at least the option of spreading the ball, you are making it tougher for your forwards. When Melbourne was at their best, you never saw this kind of stuff. They were so well drilled, they always had "shape" on both sides of the field.

 

[Huge]

You're right Pete, there was little variations in our sets. I must have said it a few times during the live match thread, but you can use the classic Gus Gould line about our attack - "You can throw a blanket over them". So many times in our own half everyone was bunched up together in the middle of the field. Souffs pretty much had no trouble picking us off. By the time they reluctantly spread out on tackle 4 or 5, it was too predictable.

I keep coming back to that Craig Wing article from earlier in the year, where he was talking about our shape. If you don't have players lined up on both sides of the field, giving yourself at least the option of spreading the ball, you are making it tougher for your forwards. When Melbourne was at their best, you never saw this kind of stuff. They were so well drilled, they always had "shape" on both sides of the field.

Amazingly it's not difficult to arrange! I often wonder why so many tackles are wasted on ineffectual one outs. The modern day game may still have core principles in common with the game of the 70s but the forwards of 2019 are so so much fitter than their predecessors and the idea that you can tire them out needs scrutiny. The only way to do that is to get them moving and by that I mean side to side as well as up and back. That won't happen if only one guys running.

What I find unforgivable is forwards walking, on the very second set of possession. They amble back ,waiting for the fullback and two wingers to get them onside and then stare at each other trying to figure out which one will take a hitup. The games barely 4 minutes old and there's zero urgency to get behind the ptb and be one of three or four options. That simple thing ,that easy goal to achieve would pay off later in the game because the defence has to work harder from the very beginning.

 

[Galah]

You're right Pete, there was little variations in our sets. I must have said it a few times during the live match thread, but you can use the classic Gus Gould line about our attack - "You can throw a blanket over them". So many times in our own half everyone was bunched up together in the middle of the field. Souffs pretty much had no trouble picking us off. By the time they reluctantly spread out on tackle 4 or 5, it was too predictable.

I keep coming back to that Craig Wing article from earlier in the year, where he was talking about our shape. If you don't have players lined up on both sides of the field, giving yourself at least the option of spreading the ball, you are making it tougher for your forwards. When Melbourne was at their best, you never saw this kind of stuff. They were so well drilled, they always had "shape" on both sides of the field.

Sharks last night, almost every second hit up was spread wide Melbourne couldn’t stop the meters being gained. Wish we did that.

 

[winslow_wong]

Sharks last night, almost every second hit up was spread wide Melbourne couldn’t stop the meters being gained. Wish we did that.

You saying there’s more ways to rugby league than just 3 hit ups, a dummy half run and then a bomb???