The Wayne Bennett Super thread!

[Bucking Beads]

 

[Huge]

Maybe WB will win another GF with this superstar ( lol ) roster... dads Army !

 

[broncos4life]

again though, 8 wins and 8 losses. not what id call ok. maybe we have different definitions of "ok".

If be happy with winning half our games... It's all about perspective

 

[Huge]

Here's some perspective .
Souths have won 14 from 16. That's fantastic
Roosters have won 12 from 16. That's really good.
Storm have won 11 from 17. That's good.
Sharks have won 9 from 16. That's average and that's how well Manly will be going after tonight's win.
WBs Knights have won 8 from 16 and that's OKAY !!!!


True it's not brilliant but nevertheless it is by any comparative standard okay. I would happily trade positions to have half and half with a 77 points for and against. Running sixth in a sixteen team comp could even be considered good if you weren't too tough a judge.

 

[Anonymous person]

winning 50% of your matches isnt "okay" IMO.

you might have lower standards, good for you if you think that losing half your matches is "okay". its not for me.

the fact that a team who loses half their matches is coming 6th and would make the finals tells me 2 things:

1. the competition is bad, as more teams are inconsistent and just plain bad.
2. we have too many teams in our finals series.

 

[Huge]

Okay, we have different standards then fine and dandy. It might be worth considering then that an absolutely out standing coaching record ( and by extension a win/loss ratio ) is only 69 %, a brilliant record at about 63 % and an average coaching record is around 50%. Many coaches are under that in this league and most others for that matter. So yes, 50/50 is okay, not brilliant,not excellent but okay. Just in case you've missed these well made points, the highly regarded Tim Sheens lifetime record is 51%.

 

[Broncoman]

Ever since Bennett arrived at Newcastle Uate has gone backwards instead of forwards. He was the best winger in the comp in 2010 and 2011 and was tearing apart every team but since Bennet arrived he has been a shadow of his former self, he still is a very good player despite his defensive liabilities.

 

[Coxy]

winning 50% of your matches isnt "okay" IMO.

you might have lower standards, good for you if you think that losing half your matches is "okay". its not for me.

the fact that a team who loses half their matches is coming 6th and would make the finals tells me 2 things:

1. the competition is bad, as more teams are inconsistent and just plain bad.
2. we have too many teams in our finals series.

Point 1 is the issue. In a year where you've got 5 top notch teams that are going great guns and winning 60-70% of their games, 50% isn't so good.
When you've only got 3 teams really with a significant margin between wins and losses, then 50-50 is "OK".

The competition this year is really "even" (which is code for shithouse).

 

[Anonymous person]

Okay, we have different standards then fine and dandy. It might be worth considering then that an absolutely out standing coaching record ( and by extension a win/loss ratio ) is only 69 %, a brilliant record at about 63 % and an average coaching record is around 50%. Many coaches are under that in this league and most others for that matter. So yes, 50/50 is okay, not brilliant,not excellent but okay. Just in case you've missed these well made points, the highly regarded Tim Sheens lifetime record is 51%.

thats over a whole coaching career, not over 1 season lol.

again, 50% win ratio is not ok IMO. ivan henjak won 56.09% of his games for us, should that be considered basically halfway between "brilliant" and "ok"? would that be "great"? "fantastic"?

winning 50% of your games basically shows youre a numpty IMO. a decent team of professional football players in this day and age should be able to win 50% of their games with their stadium janitor as their coach.

btw....

Bellamy - 68.75% career winning percentage
Bennett 63.45% career winning percentage

and i wouldnt regard sheens as even a good coach these days, nor for the last 10 years.

 

[Huge]

Last point first AP. Err, didn't I give the percentages as 69 and 63 ? Bellamy ,considered the best in the game, has the top and that's over a career so how can one argue ? Mind you, that was achieved as we know with largely illegal teams. The next best is WB and as you repeatedly point out , that average was achieved with a superstar roster. So, using the evidence and your own assertions we can conclude that if a coach had a moderate roster and a legal one then if he were coaching very well he would likely achieve a win/loss of somewhere between 50 and 60 percent. Thus 50/50 would indeed be okay with say, 57% being very good.

Needless to say, your own logic and the evidence won't convince a blindly prejudiced person. Oh, finally and rather unsurprisingly the 18 team Afl comp ladder shows the team in eighth position with 8 from 15, ninth 7 from 15. Both teams doing okay, wouldn't you agree ?

 

[Huge]

So now the knights are fifth and we get the pleasure of playing them twice in the coming weeks. I guess we get to pit ourselves against a team that plays an old outdated style of league, the so called Bennett Ball style. Can our more modern take on league overcome this anachronism ? Somehow this year it seems as though that's all we've played, 5 one outs and a kick. Even more amazing the Broncos have scored 80 less points and conceded 53 more points. How can we be so bad when a old style team can make us look ordinary. It's a puzzle.

 

[Anonymous person]

Your mistake is assuming that we have been saying that the broncos haven't been playing boring Bennett ball. We have, that's the problem. We don't have the game breakers nor the talent to win with that style, yet our out-of-his-depth numpty coach thinks we do so he persists with that style. Mullen/boyd/uate/snowden/mcmanus/cuthbertson/mckinnon are far better than 90% of our roster, and I would trade them for our players in an instant.

like I said before, getting rid of benett wasn't our downfall. Replacing him with a cheap knockoff, then replacing that knockoff with an even worse one was.

the funny thing is that if you take out the games against the titans and tigers the knights for would look a lot like ours. The tigers played about the worst game I've ever seen a team play, and the titans lost one of their best players 2 minutes into the game and then leaked seven tries where that player usually defends. That was almost 100 points for the knights from those 2 games iirc, and only because they got lucky.

 

[Huge]

Strange how you can read something and utterly miss what was plainly written. My fourth line plainly says we have been playing 5 one outs and kick. Isn't that what you refer to as Bennett Ball ? Are you now saying WB does not employ that style ? Is his team playing BB and scoring 133 more points in the process and winning 3 more matches ? In your opinion is he still doing the same old thing or is his team playing differently ?

 

[theshed]

Stop being a dingus. The guy just wrote a short novel on why Bennett ball is more successful at the Knights than the Broncos. The boring game depends on being able to get over the line when you boringly grind your way into your opponents 20. The knights have the men to do it, we don't.

Gidley
Mullen
Boyd
Gagai
Uate
McManus
Buderus
Bj Leilua

All these players offer waaay more in attack than any of our halves or backs (except, very obviously, Hodges).

 

[Huge]

Thanks for that, straight to name calling. So Newcastle are able to score after grinding their way down field. I'm just curious then, what exactly is different then to the other fifteen teams who play the same way to get down field. The rest of the comp use their forwards to get field position like Newcastle does then the players you mentioned for the scoring. First of all, BB must be effective as all clubs employ it. Secondly, WBs coaching must include methods to score which I have pointed out are producing 133 points more than the Broncos.

Bennett Ball is a myth which the knockers have wrapped their arms around. The other great lie is that WBs time was up, he is a dinosaur and he is plain old outdated. Irrespective of the troops he has had at his disposal he has managed to coach his teams to semi final and grand final glory. At the same time we have managed to miss the semi finals once and are almost certain to again. Baseless biased crap thrown up to weakly support a crap theory.

 

[Ari Gold]

Thanks for that, straight to name calling. So Newcastle are able to score after grinding their way down field. I'm just curious then, what exactly is different then to the other fifteen teams who play the same way to get down field. The rest of the comp use their forwards to get field position like Newcastle does then the players you mentioned for the scoring. First of all, BB must be effective as all clubs employ it. Secondly, WBs coaching must include methods to score which I have pointed out are producing 133 points more than the Broncos.

Bennett Ball is a myth which the knockers have wrapped their arms around. The other great lie is that WBs time was up, he is a dinosaur and he is plain old outdated. Irrespective of the troops he has had at his disposal he has managed to coach his teams to semi final and grand final glory. At the same time we have managed to miss the semi finals once and are almost certain to again. Baseless biased crap thrown up to weakly support a crap theory.

This is wrong on several levels. First of all, the Eels don't get the ball down the field with their forwards. In fact, they basically don't get it down the field at all unless they get a penalty.

On a more serious level, teams use their forwards with varying levels of risk. The Warriors, for instance, employ a shitload of offloads in their game plan. It is simply wrong to say they play Bennett ball.

 

[Huge]

Fair enough. I don't know what this supposed BennettBall is. Do you have a short one or two sentence definition ? It's true every team uses their forwards to gain ground and its equally true some teams use more off loading with their forwards. What I'm getting at though is the Knights are getting downfield with their forwards and then using other players to score. Is this the famous BennettBall ?

 

[Ari Gold]

Wayne Bennett

For me Bennettball is a game plan that revolves around power forward running until you reach the red zone, where players are allowed to play more attacking footy. Until you get there though, there's a high emphasis on using big forwards to run one out with power, with a high restriction on offloading and ball movement.

So the ball playing forwards of Hasler and offloading abandon of the Tigers and Warriors would not qualify as BB, nor would teams who happily shift the ball wide in their own halves etc. for me that is what BB is, but AP might had a different definition.