Too Small for years

Post Reply
Eddie
Member
Member
Posts: 3569
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 3:05 pm

Too Small for years

Post by Eddie » Sun 15 May, 2016 8:13 pm

For years and years we just cant compete when the going gets tough. We are too small and fragile all over the park.

Just look at our outside backs, all small. None of them could power their way over or leap high for a bomb. Our halves are miniture, both easy targets in the defensive line. Our forwards no bigger then average with little aggression. No ability to offload, no one to be scared of.

The end results means you have a side that can compete for 2 or 3 months when everyone is fit. However once the grind kicks in we get injuries, we get knocked around and we are a easy kill for all the good sides and even the average side.

Since when has that been a recipe for success in the NRL?

You can tget away with having 1 or 2 but not 5 or 6.

In the forwards its the same. Not enough aggression, no one can hit hard or hurt someone.

Is why we always lose penalty counts and cant defend repeat sets. We cant wrestle we just get dominated.

If we ever have a recruitment strategy it should to recruit some guys with size and aggression.


User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29290
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Sun 15 May, 2016 8:19 pm

Lol recruitment strategy.... That would. Be nice

Newtown
Member
Member
Posts: 5620
Joined: Fri 28 Sep, 2012 8:40 am

Post by Newtown » Sun 15 May, 2016 8:45 pm

Eddie wrote:For years and years we just cant compete when the going gets tough. We are too small and fragile all over the park.

Just look at our outside backs, all small. None of them could power their way over or leap high for a bomb. Our halves are miniture, both easy targets in the defensive line. Our forwards no bigger then average with little aggression. No ability to offload, no one to be scared of.

The end results means you have a side that can compete for 2 or 3 months when everyone is fit. However once the grind kicks in we get injuries, we get knocked around and we are a easy kill for all the good sides and even the average side.

Since when has that been a recipe for success in the NRL?

You can tget away with having 1 or 2 but not 5 or 6.

In the forwards its the same. Not enough aggression, no one can hit hard or hurt someone.

Is why we always lose penalty counts and cant defend repeat sets. We cant wrestle we just get dominated.

If we ever have a recruitment strategy it should to recruit some guys with size and aggression.
If you ask me the team is a basket case right across the board. The best thing that can happen to our team is to buy three or four top players, get caught for overspending the cap and then use this excuse to keep these newly signed new top players but sack our highly paid non-achievers. There is method in this madness because teams like Roosters, Broncos and Parramatta have been getting away with it for years. If you can't beat them join them.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Sun 15 May, 2016 11:51 pm

Well Raiders have a massive side and that's not necessarily the recipe for regular success either.

For me it's more about consistency of effort, defensive line speed (stamina) and footballing smarts.

User avatar
stevied
Member
Member
Posts: 1025
Joined: Sun 10 Jul, 2011 10:45 am

Post by stevied » Mon 16 May, 2016 12:10 am

The forwards have been an Achilles heel for a very long time, going right back to the Sheens era. During that time, weak forward momentum was glossed over by fast ball movement, a strong kicking game and some brillant individual skill provided by play makers such as Benji Marshall, Scott Prince and a much younger Robbie Farrah. In this era we lack size and power in the forwards, even the barest semblance of a decent kicking game and, other than a fit Tedesco, consistent play making in the key positions.


tig_prmz
Member
Member
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 10:32 pm

Post by tig_prmz » Mon 16 May, 2016 1:24 am

dont think our size is the problem at all. it's what you do with the size that matters

that's what my gf reckons anyway.
My Round 1 Team 2018

1. lolo 2. noffa 3. suli 4. milne 5. fonua
6. reynolds 7. brooks
8. packer 9. ET 10. Twal
11. McQuen 12. Lawrence 13. Eiso
14. Matulino 15. McIllwrick 16. Sue 17. Aloiai
18. Marsters 19. Benji 20. Grant 21. K Naiqama
Next: Liddle, MCK, Felise, MWZ, Thompson, Rochow, Gamble

Balmain Boy
Member
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sun 27 Sep, 2009 7:22 pm

Post by Balmain Boy » Mon 16 May, 2016 10:39 am

Our problem is we repeatedly recruit small players across all 3 grades. For years our NYC team was one of the smallest in the comp. At that level they could still win but were unlikely to make the step up successfully. Even smallish forwards who'd be all effort, but ultimately find it harder to do the same consistently against the big boys in higher grades.

At last our nyc squad has some big boys throughout , some of whom will hopefully develop into quality first graders. The likes of Felise, Tatola, Paseka, Suli, potentially Karwhin too. PLus a few others.

It isn't all about size, if the quality and technique is there in a smaller package then that's great. But a large average footballer will beat a small average footballer more often than not.

Post Reply