Sack Griffin/New Coach Discussion

[Bucking Beads]

The last 2 performances have made me give Hook some credit. Our last 2 performances were huge improvements. Composure under pressure is what needs to be one focus - it was what IMO blew it for us yesterday. Prince just didn't see the better option on that last pass.

With Tasi in the side, with the effort and passion coming back, with Wallace kicking better, I'm reserving judgement on Hook. I mean, even Norman passed the ball at the right time, so something must be happening with the coaching

How much of Tasi have you seen this year champ?? Fair dinkum. Rushing him into the team when he couldn't get a gig at the Roosters when they had JWH and Moa out and you are carrying on like he should be first picked. Wake up.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I find it hard to gauge Hook. Our best is very good and our worst is terrible. Whether or not he can fix our inconsistency could be telling on his future. I think Hook could be doing better with our talent. We have forward capable of ball playing as good if not better than the like of the Bulldogs.

 

[Renegade]

While the performance was promising, we lost, and we're probably going to lose to Melbourne as well.

At this stage promising performances ain't enough, it needs to be performances coupled with victories. Nothing else will do otherwise we'll be 12th and Griffin will be looking for a new job.

 

[rnabokov]

How much of Tasi have you seen this year champ?? Fair dinkum. Rushing him into the team when he couldn't get a gig at the Roosters when they had JWH and Moa out and you are carrying on like he should be first picked. Wake up.

Your point about Tasi is good of course, however, what I have seen of him is way beyond anything our props could do (Except Hannant and McGuire) and on that basis, I'd rather have him in the side than Anderson, Lui or Dodds.

Also, given Melbourne's woes, and with Widdup out, I have faith in .... the team

 

[Bucking Beads]

Your point about Tasi is good of course, however, what I have seen of him is way beyond anything our props could do (Except Hannant and McGuire) and on that basis, I'd rather have him in the side than Anderson, Lui or Dodds.

Also, given Melbourne's woes, and with Widdup out, I have faith in .... the team

Be patient champ. I'm not against Tasi coming straight in against Melbourne but I think playing a game of Q cup is the right path to travel for him. He isn't a world beater by any means so earning your spot would be a must. I'd certainly have him ahead of Lui and Anderson. Dodds I think has come on in leaps and bounds this year although he isn't going to make the impact of a Tasi is he.

 

[rnabokov]

Be patient champ. I'm not against Tasi coming straight in against Melbourne but I think playing a game of Q cup is the right path to travel for him. He isn't a world beater by any means so earning your spot would be a must. I'd certainly have him ahead of Lui and Anderson. Dodds I think has come on in leaps and bounds this year although he isn't going to make the impact of a Tasi is he.

I do agree Beads, but given it's now desperation stakes, I'd like to see what Tasi could offer

 

[broncos4life]

I can see both points here but I think he needs to come straight in now hannant is out. Normally I would be all for him going to Q cup and 'earning his spot' but we are at desperation stakes here and we need to win as many games as possible. Also, I have seen Tasi play and I can safely say that his worst game is better than anything Anderson or Lui can dish up, so considering he would be replacing Lui, whats the risk?

 

[Splinter]

yesterdays game was the last straw for me. Effort was good but the negative tactics of kicking to the corners on 3rd and 4th tackle and defending our way to victory tells me that Hook is not the coach i want for the Broncos.
For people to say that we put in a good effort yesterday so he should stay for a while is ridiculous. If they attacked instead of going defensive once we got the lead chances are we would have won by 10 to 16 points.
I say start looking for life without Hook right now

 

[noisetheory]

yesterdays game was the last straw for me. Effort was good but the negative tactics of kicking to the corners on 3rd and 4th tackle and defending our way to victory tells me that Hook is not the coach i want for the Broncos.

seriously? our kicking game has been sh*te all year and for once it was excellent and u criticise it for being negative?

the lead up to the hurrell try was some fantastic attacking footy by us.

we had numerous opportunities to put that game away. we had repeat sets. we had a ref call a forward pass for a try which on any other day this year would of been awarded without a second thought. we got within inches of scoring numerous other times in that second half.

 

[Renegade]

I thought that was a strange comment too, since when is kicking on the 3rd and 4th is defending our way to victory? It's smart play, the wingers are out of position and it's a simple way of pinning them down their own end and making them run it off their own line. It's the fundamentals of the territorial battle that is played out every game, every week.

The only strange thing about it was the fact it was Wallace who was doing it, and he was kicking extremely well considering who it was. I thought Wallace actually had a pretty good game yesterday despite him being the main scapegoat of our side (sometimes deservedly).

 

[vertigo]

Not sold on the Souths coach yet tbh. I think Inglis, like Lockyer, makes sides look better than they are.

Are you sold on Griffin?

 

[Splinter]

Not saying the kicking game was not good just that it was negative. Run the ball for 5 and kick to the corners fair enough but kick to the corners on 3rd and 4th NEGATIVE.
We gave the Warriors the ball back, which included a rest for them. You cannot tell me that wearing them out for 5 tackles would not have been a more attacking ploy. As you said we looked dangerous with the ball at times in the second half. Surprisingly it was when they had the ball that we were not dangerous SARCASM. Why give it to them when we could attack with it.
Just because we played well and deserved the victory does not mean we did not employ negative tactics. If we ran the ball for all our tackles i believe we would have broken them and won the game.
We still deserved the win anyway but the loss is just the nature of sport.

 

[noisetheory]

how often did we actually kick on the 3rd and 4th. to be honest i dont even remember noticing.

i dont believe its a negative tactic and never have. i honestly dont know why teams dont do it more often, depending on the situation, and position of the fb/wings. if you spot a chance to lock a team on their goal line and then smash them defensively you earn good field position from the ensuing set.

 

[Renegade]

We did actually kick a fair bit on the 3rd and 4th, even my partner noticed it and she's not the most astute football mind. It was good play, we surprised them and kept them on the back foot for a decent chunk of time.

Splinter, can you please explain how it is negative play? Personally it is less negative than running 5 one outs and a kick on the last down the throat of the waiting winger/fullback for a couple of reasons:

1) it's a display of confidence by the team kicking the ball (we think we're good enough to hold you out)
2) it keeps the opposition on their toes because we aren't predictable
3) it allows us to pin them down in their own end, giving us more space, time and tackles in their own end to score.
4) It's a lot harder running it off your own 10m line then off your 40m.

Can you list reasons as to why it's negative play? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious as to your reasoning because you seem very persistent on it being a negative tactic.

 

[noisetheory]

We did actually kick a fair bit on the 3rd and 4th, even my partner noticed it and she's not the most astute football mind. It was good play, we surprised them and kept them on the back foot for a decent chunk of time.

yeah i was genuinely asking, as i didnt notice it. was doing two things at once

 

[Splinter]

No1 you cannot score points without the football. You can stop them if your defence is up to standard. Ours was yesterday.
We were kicking on 3rd and 4th from around halfway not from our own 20 metre line so we already had reasonable field position.
And lastly as one of you alluded to we looked good when moving the ball from this far out in this game for a change. Why not be the dominant team by giving this more of a run than kicking to the opposition. I am not talking about 5 hit ups and a kick i was referring to the tackles we were already starting to pull through and some attacking raids down the left hand side.
For me personally iwould rather see them attack and lose which ultimately they did. I just believe that part of the second half was defensive.
Most of us realise that we do not have a player with the x factor to win us a game in the last 2 minutes so we need to score points when on top of the opposition not give them the ball and say i hope you drop it or see if you can get through.
I think we had them yesterday and could of put them to the sword. Maybe i misread the game but i thought we were on top when we were giving away the ball and ultimately kept them close enough to **** us over at the end

 

[Splinter]

My missus will tell you that a male cannot do things at once :biggrin: That is why i dont talk to her when the footys on

 

[Splinter]

I will finish with this
I thought it was a great 1st half of footy yesterday and it ended up a great game of footy only because we made it one in the second half when we were on top.
We should be saying how fucking well did the Broncs play yesterday and we are tied for 8th. Not gee whiz we deserved to win but were robbed