Discussion in 'Brisbane Broncos Talk' started by Gaz, Jan 7, 2018.
Come on... read the posts again, seriously!
My interpretation of the post was weighed out by the italics. It's when we have a set that starts in the opposition 20. That created the exception in the first post. Because it's true, we are one of the better teams at converting once we have tackles down the other end, but we do seem to wobble once we restart our penalty count between the 20zone.
That's not that hard to understand?
Why I also went on to say that perhaps there's merit then in taking the 2 because usually to restart the tackle count within the 20 it's from a penalty.
Momentum helps a lot for two running halves when the sets of six allows them to keep it up and has the defensive line backpedaling and there are potential holes. But repeat sets of six, largely from opposition errors or penalties in that area leaves us in serious trouble and why? Because we haven't got the momentum, suddenly the room and momentum the running halves had is gone, the defensive line has more to work with and we need more then just shifting the ball from left to right, we need real communication and direction from the spine players on where they need their players to be, we need a short kicking game too. We were too guilty of making the oppositions job too easy in these situations. Sure we scored a good amount of tries there when we had the roll on, but we could have had a hell of a lot more addressing those issues.
I agree. Another 100%er
Yup, that is the problem when we play the better structured teams, against which we invariably struggle for momentum.
We'll beat most teams in the NRL, many with ease, but without a proper "general" on the field and a good kicking game, we will keep struggling against the very top.
I disagree with the momentum comment in this sense: If there is no momentum, the halves and to some extent the fullback, is required to generate and steer this. Halves are on either side of the coin, they use the momentum and they generate momentum with steering and control.
We lack the steering and controlling as well as maturity. 9 & 1 have the vision and maturity to see the game turn, 6 is half way there but still an opportunistic player and 7 is out of his depth trying too hard to be a 7.
I think we just need better structured set plays for this situation. We can't just rely on Boyd out the back even though he's the best at it going around. It gets VERY predictable. We have strike centres. We need to build plays around getting then some space. Like getting tackled on the left side of the field near the set mark and setting up a sweeping backline movement with all bodies in motion to the right etc
I feel that's what we're missing in those moments.
Completely agree mate, this has to come from our 6 & 7 mostly. To some extend 9 & 1 also. If the 6 & 7 do not have the maturity and management ability we will not be steered the right way and hence debacles ensue that happened last season.
If Bennett is as good as his reputation and record suggests, I wonder if he is cooking up a revolutionary game plan. Obviously, all premierships are built on defense BUT the point of difference can be the attack, this may be where Bird fits into the puzzle.
Obviously every side has their attack come from some combination of their 1, 6, 7 and 9. Mostly, that is what sides do and the Broncos will be no different. However, with Bird, Roberts and Lodge all having the ability to play make, I wonder if they will be working on some kind of hybrid traditional play with a Walkers brothers' lite twist. It would be hard to make it work at NRL level BUT if it does, it could be the point of difference that makes this very good side become premiership contenders.
Reckon Bennett is going for a full power game, dent the line, let the little/fast dudes sniff around the ruck like Milf and Roberts.
Bigger bodies all seemingly attributing for that. Probably not as enticing on the eye as perhaps Melbourne or others, but it'll work well ... as long as those same big bodies aren't stuff after 10mins and sitting ducks.
I think it could really be exciting if he goes that path given just how electric the Broncs little men can be.
Bennett's teams have been the most successful in seasons where they defended super well. Regardless of happens with our attack, I hope he gets them playing for each other, scrambling, cover tackling etc. like in the past.
I agree entirely.
Don't count out how tiring it is to have to tackle one 115 kg bloke followed by another 115 kg bloke followed by another 115 kg bloke (particularly if a few can pass and unload).
It's also infinitely harder top wrestle blokes who are bigger and stronger.
Also, having bigger bodies invariably means that you need to commit more defenders to them (this causes the line to creep in - the A, B and C defender on each side are usually closer to each other as its harder to tackle big blokes with less bodies)
Finally, a big guy will sometimes just run over a bloke (see NSA in the semis against us last year).
I think if our forwards can dominate, our backs will create a lot of scoring opportunities.
If we can dominate the ruck with a big pack then teams won't get as many chances close to our line.
until our huge pack gets tired and the opposition little men start to run riot
that's the risk.
but also, it's much easier for bigger guys to win the wrestle defensively. So the other team get slow play of the balls and the other team's little men get no momentum (so they can't run riot).
It's a fine line ... while you do obviously need some size, you need to be careful not to go overboard.
take a look at the sides with arguably the 3 biggest packs in the comp (Raider, Bulldogs and Warriors) ... all 3 missed the finals in 2017. and the Warriors in particular have got some pretty good little men to run riot
Storm premieres with man mountains.
We need to make sure that our big guys are fit. Also I doubt that you can carry a bench hooker if you are playing a huge pack.
I'd think Melbourne would be close to the biggest pack in the comp. The Bromwich boys, NSA - they are monsters.
Separate names with a comma.