LIVE GAME Round 3 vs. Sharks

Live Game Discussion
jirskyr said:
It was really nice for the whole game the Sharks probed the edges and Tigers held their width / trusted the inside cover. We don't normally have two halves that can both defend reliably all match.

And the wingers stayed wide, no Nofo-style charge-ins if Sharks started to stretch us.

I will assume this has something also to do with John Morris and his defensive coaching.
Click to expand...
Completely agree mate ay, we actually looked like a team that train together everyday rather then a couple of throw together sessions a month. Was really impressive how we defended and all worked together. it was the most complete performance from Wests tigers I've seen since I don't know when. Super proud of the squad and coaching staff.
 
Its not only that the defensive structures looked sounder but the willingness, effort and intent from every player to compete in every aspect of the game is what made us look like a top 8 team and not the spooners. Replicating that effort and desire week in and week out is the difference between the top teams and the rest. The fact that it exists within our group is a terrific start and now we need to build on it every week.
 
BlackWhiteGold said:
They play with plenty of width too so we need to make sure we are onto Moses & Brown when they run as their acceleration through any space could expose us. And yes focus on wrapping up the ball to prevent as much 2nd phase as we can.
Click to expand...
Line speed should again be our focus; Reasons
1. You meet the opposition attackers before they have wound up for max contact force.
2. Defenders actually have more impact force going forward to force the attackers back.
3. Less time for the attackers to think of second phase play.
4. Errors creep into their game trying to create a way gain ground, push passes etc.
 
Tiger Stripes said:
Line speed should again be our focus; Reasons
1. You meet the opposition attackers before they have wound up for max contact force.
2. Defenders actually have more impact force going forward to force the attackers back.
3. Less time for the attackers to think of second phase play.
4. Errors creep into their game trying to create a way gain ground, push passes etc.
Click to expand...
Should be a non-negotiable every game! This is where our captain & vice-captain can exert their leadership. Samuela has helped in this area too, he's a bloody fit dude.
 
jirskyr said:
It was really nice for the whole game the Sharks probed the edges and Tigers held their width / trusted the inside cover. We don't normally have two halves that can both defend reliably all match.

And the wingers stayed wide, no Nofo-style charge-ins if Sharks started to stretch us.

I will assume this has something also to do with John Morris and his defensive coaching.
Click to expand...
Yes and personal
One of the guilty individuals is currently in the injured list.
 
I can’t find the thread but we were talking about refs and rule changes etc. The 7 tackle set when the ball goes over the dead ball line from the A team was mentioned, and this rule was bought in to stop teams nullifying the opposing FBack by booting the ball out over the dead ball line.
My problem is, that this rule also penalises good attacking play.
I point to Galvin’s first grubber into the in goal area that was supposed to be an attacking kick for the out side men to score. He didn’t want the ball to go dead and was crook at himself for doing so. A good play that he may get correct next time, and he should not be penalised for such an error.
Also Api nearly scored and during that attacking play the ball went over the dead ball line, again he didn’t want the ball to go over the dead ball line, and again he gets penalised for an attacking play that he may get correct next time.
Both these plays are not the reason the rule was introduced. I reckon an easy fix is as soon as your in the red zone it’s back to a 6 tackle set.
Anyway just my thoughts after watching the game so I thought I would post it here.
 
Buttface said:
I can’t find the thread but we were talking about refs and rule changes etc. The 7 tackle set when the ball goes over the dead ball line from the A team was mentioned, and this rule was bought in to stop teams nullifying the opposing FBack by booting the ball out over the dead ball line.
My problem is, that this rule also penalises good attacking play.
I point to Galvin’s first grubber into the in goal area that was supposed to be an attacking kick for the out side men to score. He didn’t want the ball to go dead and was crook at himself for doing so. A good play that he may get correct next time, and he should not be penalised for such an error.
Also Api nearly scored and during that attacking play the ball went over the dead ball line, again he didn’t want the ball to go over the dead ball line, and again he gets penalised for an attacking play that he may get correct next time.
Both these plays are not the reason the rule was introduced. I reckon an easy fix is as soon as your in the red zone it’s back to a 6 tackle set.
Anyway just my thoughts after watching the game so I thought I would post it here.
Click to expand...
It was the Jared Hayne rule implemented post the 2010 season.
Teams straight out figured that if Hayne can’t bring the ball back at a broken line the Eels are useless.
It gets worse this year. Not only are the attacking team penalised with a 7 tackle set to the opposition.
No even if that get it right. The short kick off penalty change gives the defending team even more chance to not be impacted by an attackers kick.
The league is giving it a very narrow margin for error.
They are taking controlling footy out of the game. Which can make for more exciting / inconsistent play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 220 (members: 30, guests: 190)
Forever online: Tigergran, Geo
Back
Top