When the lead stories are now about whether a board CAN get rid of a coach, you know you're past the point of whether you SHOULD get rid of said coach.When the Chairman and Lockyer are talking about responsibilities to ASIC and contract clauses, Seibold has to be finished, right?
I have views on the attack and definitely think a lack of dummy half play for basically the last 12 years has attributed to the bennetball, griffinball style of play, but Issac looks a much more natural dummy half than what we've had for awhile, so it will be interesting to see how things develop in that regard.My take on this is as I posted elsewhere. For mine, one of 2 core issues is we don't have any organization in the middle. I doubt Turpin has had enough time yet to develop into the organizing, game managing hooker we need just yet. Promising signs, yes, however, we need Luke to take on this role, and, it again shows what we really needed: BOTH an organizing half and the same in a hooker.
After Hunt left and with Macca not being the mid field general we needed, the writing started to appear on the wall and we are now reading that loud and clear.
Second, Seibold can rightly be criticised for keeping a shoddy defence, for not adapting to the new Rule as he admitted, but he is trying to play with the hand he has been dealt by the club.
Great post.I have views on the attack and definitely think a lack of dummy half play for basically the last 12 years has attributed to the bennetball, griffinball style of play, but Issac looks a much more natural dummy half than what we've had for awhile, so it will be interesting to see how things develop in that regard.
In saying all that our shit house defence is the biggest factor in how poor we are currently playing... I don't know what the percentage of tackles per try is, but it would be horrendous and would lead to a mentality that any weight of possession against them will lead to points, which they then have to chase down. They're basically in a mentality where they probably want to get into a grind it out arm wrestle with high completion rates and build pressure, but their defence is so poor that grinding it out won't create enough points to overcome their deficiencies in defence.. so plan A is basically gone within about 5mins of the game.
The only focus at training should be defence... I believe Ryan has been brought in as a consultant for 2 days a week. That's not enough if he's looking after defence... but I'd also suggest that Ryan is probably only looking after contact and tackle technique and there is someone else (who is fulltime) looking after the defence.
The next thing they need to be doing is something tangible in regards to accountability. There is no point coming out each week and saying we beat ourselves, we let ourselves down, blah blah blah.
There needs to be some form of accountability and consequences for poor play, because clearly "looking in the mirror" isn't working.
Usually a team would do a bootcamp or something else to galvanise the squad and give themselves something more than just them self to build towards (ie. not just about you it's about the team).
They need something to distract themselves away from their own poor form and focus on the team as a unit... something to play for.
I think in this regard it would be great if the leadership group came out and had some form of fine system, but not a fine in the sense of monetary value (as that is only individual basis and doesn't impact on the higher earners compared to lower earners)... instead it should be a fine where every missed tackle from the team, every error, every penalty, every suspension, every lost ruck, every 7 tackle set conceded, etc. is punished by being flogged at training. You guys missed 50 tackles so after every training session you guys are doing 50 burpees.
In that way if someone fucks up on the field they now they are costing all their teammates for the next week at training... penalties might be laps around the field, suspensions/sin bins, etc. might be km runs or something... something that puts the onus onto them as a squad.
Then build that into a catch cry or mantra in training which can then translate to the field... if there's a drop within your own 10m they can steel themselves for the upcoming defence with a mantra they have in training. In the video that Big Pete put up Carrigan mentioned that they got flogged during the pre-season and whenever the team was struggling Lodge or someone would yell out "this is still better than getting flogged 58-nil" and they would keep pushing through.
I recall back when Ivan was first at the tigers he turned every single training drill into a competition and the loser of the drill was punished. It was a way to improve their competitiveness and mentality towards losing, he basically manufactured an attitude within the squad to not lose... and you can see that now with the tigers team on the field. They went from a piss poor defensive team to one that beat the storm twice in 1 year with low scoring grind it out games... one of which they conceded like 11 penalties to 3 or something, they basically had a broncos vs storm 2015 game where they spent the whole game defending their tryline and held them out.
The coach needs to change the mentality of our players and give them something to play for, because at the moment the team looks like they're trying to go through the motions when the get to the field.
You play the way you train, and it seems like they are just hitting it up in the same way they hit it up at training... even against the knights after having a couple sessions with Peter Ryan you could see them hanging back waiting to catch the defender, wrap them up and get them to the ground the same way they trained for the week.
Unfortunately their is no intensity when they play... they're up in their own head thinking about everything instead of just playing.
TBH, Lockyer has never been the most articulate bloke. He’s always tripping over his own words and also doesn’t seem like he could be so calculated / measured with his words.Interesting comment from Locky in that interview. He said " we thought he was the right person " not we think he is the right person. Subtle difference that might mean something, or nothing at all! I would have thought they would have ssid we think he is the right person.
I dunno Des at the dogs was pretty poor. It seems like his mojos at Manly. Plus he's not bffs with Tighty Whitey so he never would have gotten the job no matter how good his presentation was.We should have gone hard after Des as soon as he was flicked from the Dogs