Are we an oridinary side or victims?

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 4817
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm
Has liked: 101 times
Been liked: 96 times

Re: Are we an oridinary side or victims?

Unread post by jirskyr » Mon 18 Apr, 2016 10:27 am

stevetiger wrote:
jirskyr wrote:But no, no culture involved there.
Correct. It's just good footy players with consistently good game plans and good execution. We just have to get these aspects of our game right.

Or it's all about culture like you want it to be and the players and the coach don't make a difference. Why not we just put together a bunch of guys on this forum and see how many games we win. I'll be the coach because I don't want to be the one getting smashed out there. The culture would be great. I want to win games. I assume most of you do as well.

I work in IT and I remember a project management coach asking us what would be successful - a good team and a shoddy PM approach or a bad team and a good PM approach. It's the good team every day.
I'm gonna go the Jason Taylor route this morning and not say the things to you that are really in my head.

Players make the culture. Coach makes the culture. Culture does not exist without the people, it is a product of the people. Of course players and coach make a difference, that is the only way to make the culture - it's not some force field sitting at the training ground, waiting for people to come breath it in.

Yes, if you have the right people you can make a winning culture. Then you add new recruits and they add to and join that culture, and it can keep winning.

Similarly you can take away key elements and the culture changes.

What we are saying is even with great elements, the culture of a place might not be good. You can add the best player in the world to a bad setup and he/she won't turn it all around.

Culture does not mean good times or smiling faces. If we put together a forum team, the culture would be great for the pre-season, then terrible when we get our fat arses smashed every week.

And you'd be first to get hooked because you are our coach.


User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 15917
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 96 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Mon 18 Apr, 2016 11:06 am

We're an average team who lack the mental steel to overcome when they cop the rough end of a 50/50 call. Good teams overcome the whistle.
It's not cruelty if you inject enough amphetamines...

Fuerza en la adversidad.

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 35889
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Unread post by happy tiger » Mon 18 Apr, 2016 5:46 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
happy tiger wrote:
Pawsandclaws wrote:Please don't blame the referees. We had our chances and weren't good enough. Our negative high ball under instruction was so predictable that we deserved to lose. The coach is not fine and has to go so we can get the best out of this side.
Negative high ball ??

The first two aimed at Koroibete he didn't even contest

Tell me this , why did they then after that attack the fullback time and time again and not attack Koroibete and the debutant winger

We didn't even find out whether he could handle a high ball

That is a player issue , not a coach issue
Happy, that's where we differ, the high ball is designed to allow our defence to set for the next six. It is a defensive play. I saw it contested twice yesterday by Addo Car and Moses. Usually we don't bother. The Storm varied their play and on one occasion nearly caught Tedesco out with the kick for Korobeite on the second or third tackle. We could have put Addo Car one on one with Korobeite and their fullback but didn't bother.
I wonder if you went back and watched the games that Koroibete has played v the Tigers how many bombs he has actually caught

I can remember watching a Friday Night game when the Storm towelled us up and the only time we bombed Koroibete he dropped it and we scored

He is a weakness under the high ball and we don't even know if the other bloke can diffuse them :brick:

Targeting the fullback was a complete waste of time

Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm
Been liked: 46 times

Unread post by Pawsandclaws » Mon 18 Apr, 2016 5:56 pm

This is the "tactic" every game, not just this game . It is negative, predictable and frankly boring. Yes I understand Korobeite may have had a weakness but I didn't think he played for every other team in the competition. :roll:

stevetiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5117
Joined: Mon 25 Feb, 2013 7:59 am

Unread post by stevetiger » Mon 18 Apr, 2016 6:10 pm

jirskyr wrote:
stevetiger wrote:
jirskyr wrote:But no, no culture involved there.
Correct. It's just good footy players with consistently good game plans and good execution. We just have to get these aspects of our game right.

Or it's all about culture like you want it to be and the players and the coach don't make a difference. Why not we just put together a bunch of guys on this forum and see how many games we win. I'll be the coach because I don't want to be the one getting smashed out there. The culture would be great. I want to win games. I assume most of you do as well.

I work in IT and I remember a project management coach asking us what would be successful - a good team and a shoddy PM approach or a bad team and a good PM approach. It's the good team every day.
I'm gonna go the Jason Taylor route this morning and not say the things to you that are really in my head.

Players make the culture. Coach makes the culture. Culture does not exist without the people, it is a product of the people. Of course players and coach make a difference, that is the only way to make the culture - it's not some force field sitting at the training ground, waiting for people to come breath it in.

Yes, if you have the right people you can make a winning culture. Then you add new recruits and they add to and join that culture, and it can keep winning.

Similarly you can take away key elements and the culture changes.

What we are saying is even with great elements, the culture of a place might not be good. You can add the best player in the world to a bad setup and he/she won't turn it all around.

Culture does not mean good times or smiling faces. If we put together a forum team, the culture would be great for the pre-season, then terrible when we get our fat arses smashed every week.

And you'd be first to get hooked because you are our coach.
This post makes as much sense as the culture argument.


Fade To Black
Member
Member
Posts: 4750
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:51 pm
Has liked: 27 times
Been liked: 51 times

Unread post by Fade To Black » Tue 19 Apr, 2016 11:19 am

Gary Bakerloo wrote:
Pawsandclaws wrote:Please don't blame the referees. We had our chances and weren't good enough. Our negative high ball under instruction was so predictable that we deserved to lose. The coach is not fine and has to go so we can get the best out of this side.
Sorry, what's so negative about high balls?

Did we ever put them up when inside the 20? No, (when we did get to the kick), we put the ball along the ground or through the hands.

No, these "negative" high kicks are put up from 40m out. The whole point is to have them starting their set inside the 20m. The high hang time gives you the best chance of achieving that objective. It's called.....you know......playing tough and with discipline. It's a defensive kick yes, but what offensive kick/play are you thinking from the 40m line? Chip over the top, run the ball? They are 1% plays. I would rather the high percentage play of the high ball and pressure them with your defence

....and it works. We were down by 6 with 15 to play, the channel 9 commentators said we were now vulnerable. However, we grinded away with control and high kicks and sure enough, with 6 to go Storm came up with a mistake that led to the try in the corner.
The idea of these bombs to pin the opposition inside their own 20 is okay,but at least have some chasers screaming through at pace to put the bloke catching it under some sort of pressure. We are never within cooee of the bloke catching the ball so he has an effortless,easy catch followed by plenty of room to run after the catch or spread the ball wide.
Our kicks are negative ones because there is never a contest for the ball or any pressure on the ball catcher.

ricksen
Member
Member
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:10 pm
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 4 times

Unread post by ricksen » Tue 19 Apr, 2016 2:26 pm

Fade To Black wrote:
Gary Bakerloo wrote:
Pawsandclaws wrote:Please don't blame the referees. We had our chances and weren't good enough. Our negative high ball under instruction was so predictable that we deserved to lose. The coach is not fine and has to go so we can get the best out of this side.
Sorry, what's so negative about high balls?

Did we ever put them up when inside the 20? No, (when we did get to the kick), we put the ball along the ground or through the hands.

No, these "negative" high kicks are put up from 40m out. The whole point is to have them starting their set inside the 20m. The high hang time gives you the best chance of achieving that objective. It's called.....you know......playing tough and with discipline. It's a defensive kick yes, but what offensive kick/play are you thinking from the 40m line? Chip over the top, run the ball? They are 1% plays. I would rather the high percentage play of the high ball and pressure them with your defence

....and it works. We were down by 6 with 15 to play, the channel 9 commentators said we were now vulnerable. However, we grinded away with control and high kicks and sure enough, with 6 to go Storm came up with a mistake that led to the try in the corner.
The idea of these bombs to pin the opposition inside their own 20 is okay,but at least have some chasers screaming through at pace to put the bloke catching it under some sort of pressure. We are never within cooee of the bloke catching the ball so he has an effortless,easy catch followed by plenty of room to run after the catch or spread the ball wide.
Our kicks are negative ones because there is never a contest for the ball or any pressure on the ball catcher.
It's not all about creating a contest, it's more about getting plenty of hang time to allow the defensive line to get up on the recipient. We did it pretty well on Sunday, with the Storm having their first tackle back on their own line a few times.
Every team in the NRL uses the same tactic, so it was good to see us do it rather well on Sunday.

I do think we don't vary our kicking game nearly enough though - barely any 40/20 attempts this season, we don't get the ball into the in-goal nearly enough, and struggle with getting our wingers into play.

Gary Bakerloo
Member
Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 7:22 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times

Unread post by Gary Bakerloo » Tue 19 Apr, 2016 2:31 pm

ricksen wrote:
Every team in the NRL uses the same tactic, so it was good to see us do it rather well on Sunday.
Exactly.....the Storm used the same tactic on Sunday. Dare I say in the last 15 minutes, we out-Stormed the Storm.

Chadman's Ghost
Member
Member
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed 15 Jul, 2009 2:21 pm

Unread post by Chadman's Ghost » Tue 19 Apr, 2016 2:39 pm

We are a "developing" side. Not good, but talent-wise, not bad. And I honestly believe, better than last year.

This year we are developing forward momentum that we haven't had for a couple of years. And our defense is good for 80% of a game.

We place too much pressure on ourselves through poor options in attack &, my bane in life, dumb cluster penalties. We let teams out of there 20 FAR too easily. And not through poor defense, through dumb penalties. It relieves pressure at the same time as giving the opposition momentum.

They get that out of their game, they force a few repeat sets, and this team moves on from 'developing' to very competitive.

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2687
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 17 times

Unread post by magpiecol » Tue 19 Apr, 2016 6:02 pm

stevetiger wrote:We aren't a terrible team and that is why the coach should cop it. We aren't playing to our potential.

In stating that we had plenty of chances to win that game and the players stuffed it.

The players stuffed it??????

How about the dead set penalty try that we were not awarded? Blind Freddy could see that! That was under the posts, so 6 additional points. 18 + 6 = 24.

How about the try awarded to the Storm from a forward pass? So, 4 less points for the Storm. 18 - 4 = 14. No need for golden point.

I believe that try was scored whilst Teddy was down for the count in backplay as well. The referee stopped the play when a Storm player had a cramp!!! No stoppage when the Weststigers player was knocked out!!!

I can understand the officials getting it wrong once in a game. Twice maybe, but three times??

Slot the blame where it belongs. The players played well.

stevetiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5117
Joined: Mon 25 Feb, 2013 7:59 am

Unread post by stevetiger » Tue 19 Apr, 2016 6:06 pm

magpiecol wrote:
stevetiger wrote:We aren't a terrible team and that is why the coach should cop it. We aren't playing to our potential.

In stating that we had plenty of chances to win that game and the players stuffed it.

The players stuffed it??????

How about the dead set penalty try that we were not awarded? Blind Freddy could see that! That was under the posts, so 6 additional points. 18 + 6 = 24.

How about the try awarded to the Storm from a forward pass? So, 4 less points for the Storm. 18 - 4 = 14. No need for golden point.

I believe that try was scored whilst Teddy was down for the count in backplay as well. The referee stopped the play when a Storm player had a cramp!!! No stoppage when the Weststigers player was knocked out!!!

I can understand the officials getting it wrong once in a game. Twice maybe, but three times??

Slot the blame where it belongs. The players played well.
I agree that there were a bunch of poor decisions but we should have won that game. We had plenty of chances.

Brooks and Moses both had good shots at field goals.

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2687
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 17 times

Unread post by magpiecol » Wed 20 Apr, 2016 5:41 pm

stevetiger wrote:
magpiecol wrote:
stevetiger wrote:We aren't a terrible team and that is why the coach should cop it. We aren't playing to our potential.

In stating that we had plenty of chances to win that game and the players stuffed it.

The players stuffed it??????

How about the dead set penalty try that we were not awarded? Blind Freddy could see that! That was under the posts, so 6 additional points. 18 + 6 = 24.

How about the try awarded to the Storm from a forward pass? So, 4 less points for the Storm. 18 - 4 = 14. No need for golden point.

I believe that try was scored whilst Teddy was down for the count in backplay as well. The referee stopped the play when a Storm player had a cramp!!! No stoppage when the Weststigers player was knocked out!!!

I can understand the officials getting it wrong once in a game. Twice maybe, but three times??

Slot the blame where it belongs. The players played well.
I agree that there were a bunch of poor decisions but we should have won that game. We had plenty of chances.

Brooks and Moses both had good shots at field goals.

That is NOT the point.

If the officials get it right, there would have been no need for extra time.

stevetiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5117
Joined: Mon 25 Feb, 2013 7:59 am

Unread post by stevetiger » Wed 20 Apr, 2016 6:38 pm

magpiecol wrote:
stevetiger wrote:
magpiecol wrote:
stevetiger wrote:We aren't a terrible team and that is why the coach should cop it. We aren't playing to our potential.

In stating that we had plenty of chances to win that game and the players stuffed it.

The players stuffed it??????

How about the dead set penalty try that we were not awarded? Blind Freddy could see that! That was under the posts, so 6 additional points. 18 + 6 = 24.

How about the try awarded to the Storm from a forward pass? So, 4 less points for the Storm. 18 - 4 = 14. No need for golden point.

I believe that try was scored whilst Teddy was down for the count in backplay as well. The referee stopped the play when a Storm player had a cramp!!! No stoppage when the Weststigers player was knocked out!!!

I can understand the officials getting it wrong once in a game. Twice maybe, but three times??

Slot the blame where it belongs. The players played well.
I agree that there were a bunch of poor decisions but we should have won that game. We had plenty of chances.

Brooks and Moses both had good shots at field goals.

That is NOT the point.

If the officials get it right, there would have been no need for extra time.
I think it is the point. We will have poor decisions go against us. We still need to win games in that situation.

Tigermama
Member
Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: Sat 14 Jun, 2014 12:33 am

Unread post by Tigermama » Wed 20 Apr, 2016 10:35 pm

TIGER wrote:Today probably both, but generally we are ordinary with flashes of brilliance.
Until someone can control this team through a controlled kicking game we'll continue to be ordinary.
Our kicking is atrocious and has been since Scott Prince departed imo.
Wish one of our halves had Jamie Soward's kicking game.
How good was his kicking against the Roosters. It won them the game.

Tigermama
Member
Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: Sat 14 Jun, 2014 12:33 am

Unread post by Tigermama » Wed 20 Apr, 2016 10:56 pm

MacDougall wrote:
Newtown wrote:I say that our main problem is that we are carrying two young, inexperienced halves. Sure, they have talent but when it comes to a pressure situation in a first grade match they still don't know how to deal with it. They will come good with experience but the club will (if these two sign up in June) have to bear the pain of their inexperience.l
I'm not sure how much you know about business culture but to me it appears cultural. We have had most of the same issues in this club since well before Brooks and Moses arrived. It is ill discipline and it is shirking duty when the going gets tough. As Taylor put it "being hard on yourself and making soft decisions". It's really a perfect way to sum up the Tigers in general for years. Weak in defence, weak on last tackle options, weak before and after breaks, weak off the field and on the field. We let average players have career best games. Debutantes score doubles, and trebles. Because we make soft decisions.

There is no desire to hurt the opposition. There is no fight to drag the player down when they are dragging defenders through the line. Everything is for show. We are a painted whore of a football team.

The problem is that it has been going on for so long that I think the culture has infected most of the players who could have formed the basis for changing it. A little bit monkey see-monkey do.

It's now part of the culture of the club, the colours, emblem and name. Most people would look at the common link to the eras of incompetence and point at Farah. I don't agree. I did at one point, but the more I've dwelled on it the more I think that Farah was actually the one that was trying to change it about the club and has been the entire time. All the stories out of the camp are Farah had beef with Benji. Farah contributed to Sheens's and Potter's ousting. He appears to be the one trying to initiate change at levels that can alter the culture. Taylor walks in and makes the assumption that Farah is actually the cause of the culture and tries to oust him and Farah loses his mind because he's getting hung out to dry over something he's been personally trying to fix the entire time.

If you look at the periods of success with the club, it coincided with;

a) Fluke that the rules made our haphazard style of play work in 2005 plus Sheens being fresh probably had the respect of the side at the time.
b) Steve Folkes and Gareth Ellis being at the club. Two guys absolutely renowned for discipline and toughness.

Potter couldn't handle it. He came in and tried spinning the plates but they kept falling off and smashing on the floor. Farah didn't rate him as the guy needed to make the change, and he probably wasn't. Taylor... he might be, but like I said can he spin the plates? He showed the desire to make a huge move by tossing Farah but he couldn't get what he wanted done... so he's probably not a capable enough leader to make things that need to happen, happen. Woods as captain, I think is not a good decision either. Another easy decision it was, made by the senior playing group. Pick the most popular guy.

Who is the guy? I don't think Cleary is the go.

I think we need a respected on field disciplinarian leader signed from outside the club as well as a similar coach. Michael Maguire as a coach would be good. Bellamy perfect. The only player off contract that remotely fits the bill is Cooper Cronk... unfortunately there's not really anyone out there who we can go after.

If we could draw up ... I dunno, a challenge? A career defining challenge/opportunity for Craig Bellamy and throw it and loads of cash at him...

Unfortunately I don't see anything like that happening any time soon. Unless we fluke it, or I am just all kinds of wrong.
Bellamy signed with Storm till the end of 2018.

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2687
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 17 times

Unread post by magpiecol » Thu 21 Apr, 2016 11:10 am

shane2801 wrote:
Harvey wrote:The referees do not make any mistakes, just ask Tony Archer. He can defend the indefensible.
Are you perfect Harvey? It's very easy to referee from a lounge chair. I can guarantee it won't be too often this year or next that the Cowboys or Broncos will lose a game because of an unfortunate call. Good sides win whatever happens in the 80 mins.

What a load of crap!

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2687
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 17 times

Unread post by magpiecol » Thu 21 Apr, 2016 11:15 am

stevetiger wrote:
magpiecol wrote:
stevetiger wrote:
magpiecol wrote:

The players stuffed it??????

How about the dead set penalty try that we were not awarded? Blind Freddy could see that! That was under the posts, so 6 additional points. 18 + 6 = 24.

How about the try awarded to the Storm from a forward pass? So, 4 less points for the Storm. 18 - 4 = 14. No need for golden point.

I believe that try was scored whilst Teddy was down for the count in backplay as well. The referee stopped the play when a Storm player had a cramp!!! No stoppage when the Weststigers player was knocked out!!!

I can understand the officials getting it wrong once in a game. Twice maybe, but three times??

Slot the blame where it belongs. The players played well.
I agree that there were a bunch of poor decisions but we should have won that game. We had plenty of chances.

Brooks and Moses both had good shots at field goals.

That is NOT the point.

If the officials get it right, there would have been no need for extra time.
I think it is the point. We will have poor decisions go against us. We still need to win games in that situation.

Some of you people do not have a clue.

yeti
Member
Member
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue 08 Nov, 2011 5:38 pm
Been liked: 7 times

Unread post by yeti » Thu 21 Apr, 2016 11:37 am

I agree with Col here - yes we do have an appalling record in golden point games which surely shows our mindset. However, in this case, glaring errors from the refs put us into a golden point game that we should never have been in. One fewer error from the whistle blower and we have 2 competition points. It sucks!

Post Reply

Return to “Round 7: Wests Tigers vs Melbourne Storm”