@jirskyr said in Ryan Matterson - Future origin player?:
@gallagher said in Ryan Matterson - Future origin player?:
@pawsandclaws1 said in Ryan Matterson - Future origin player?:
Moses gets mentioned as a possible Blues half. Tedesco leaves and gets the fullback role for the Blues. Had Brooks gone to the Roosters he no doubt would be in the running. Ditto Matterson had he stayed at the Roosters. Twal would be in the Blues if he played for another club,
Teddy made the blues from us.
Also Aaron Woods, who lost the rep jersey when he left Tigers.
Lost the blue one but kept his green and gold.
@Spartan117 said in The J(uro) Curve:
Love the J Curve thread.
However it doest show how improved we are as a club.
Im hoping for semis in 2019 but im hanging for 2020 under madge.
no point having hope… because we WILL make the SEMIS
Who cares if Tigers are relying on Benji and Farah, if Benji and Farah are playing well? I’d much rather be relying on them right now than Ash Taylor / Mitch Rein, or McInness / Ben Hunt, or Isaac Luke / Kodi Nikorima, or Nathan Cleary / Wade Egan, or Jaemon Demon Salmon / Mahoney.
Benji and Farah are obviously short-term options, but they are very experienced in a time where Tigers have a gap in their half/hooker juniors options. There are new guys coming in the ranks now, but Liddle was the only one of the last 3-4 years worth looking at.
@diedpretty said in Speed:
@Masterton said in Speed:
@Snake I had a look at the list of wingers allegedly off-contract and it’s the epitome of slim pickings. I suspect if we’re going to have a tall, quick winger, it will be a debutant.
Yep and here he is :
saw a video on roar.com about a 3rd trobjevic brother… in the video he is quite quick
@Nelson said in More bad behaviour:
Never said you were naive but your thinking on this matter is. This is not a criminal decision. It’s weak leadership buckling to the squeaky wheel. I can only imagine the non criminal lawyers would be rubbing there hands with glee with this decision. Lawsuits here we come.
Well they might be rubbing their hands because they sense the opportunity to get paid to run an interesting case, but that doesn’t mean they’ll win. If a case is brought and is shot down with costs then we can revisit the naivety of my thinking. I’m pretty sure the ARLC will have taken advice on their exposure from some pretty well recognised specialists in the area and they’ve decided to take the course they’ve taken.
De Belin’s case has been dismissed with costs at first instance and it will have cost him hundreds of thousands in his own costs plus he’ll be saddled with a similar bill from the NRL. De Belin loses a stack of money and doesn’t get what he wants and his counsel paint him in a bad light by trying to claim that the NRL don’t sufficiently educate players about attitudes and violence towards women. The NRL witnesses get made to look like amateur stooges (probably because they are). Neither party comes out a winner, just the lawyers with their excessive fees for ordinary advice…
@old_man_tiger The best way I can see us becoming a real force in the next couple of seasons is by recruiting well and having constant stability right across the club,not only in the front office and board room but through to the playing group.
We definitely don’t need the dramas of the previous years such as cap disputes and errors,player arrests,court appearances or sackings…we are in a very stable environment at this point in time and Madge to me is the coach we have needed for a very long time and our playing style and performances are improving every week except the couple of blowout results we have had…
I was very impressed with the Storm game and only a couple of errors gave them the 2 points where we could have had them…
all in all this year has been a good honest season with the team playing for 80 most weeks,the coach has done well to have them where they are…
if they maintain their composure for the next few rounds against the top teams,they could very well beat both Souths and Easts,Madge would have shown them where they went wrong against the chooks and hopefully rectifys the mistakes …
the team is doing ok and this squad can be a force if they keep defending well and sharpen up the attack,they are learning all the time from Madge and themselves…
@innsaneink said in Played Well But...:
@jirskyr said in Played Well But...:
@innsaneink said in Played Well But...:
I wonder if these now two very close losses will see us miss the eight again… These are the ones we gotta win
Please please please do me a favour and stop with this logical fallacy. People say this every year “will the close losses cost us?”
Every loss costs us in the long-run. You don’t get more or less penalty for a close loss or a flogging. So for every close loss that we could have won, there’s also a belting that we should have avoided.
Total losses is the problem, not close losses. Most teams win 50% of close games, that’s how evens out. The best teams win slightly more close games. The absolute best teams don’t get involved in close games, they win handily.
So which outcome is better - 10 close losses, or 5 close losses and 5 floggings? By your logic, the 10 close losses is more troublesome? But I put it to you that even losing closely at least means you are playing a type of football that allows you to get close to winning. If you are getting belted every few weeks, clearly you don’t really deserve to be playing finals footy.
Tigers can worry about converting more close games, after they get to the point where every week they keep touch with the opposition. It’s something the Roosters have the luxury of focusing on.
Close losses cost us a spot last year… There were games we should’ve won but didn’t, couldn’t close out… Same this year.
You lump all losses together, I see the Parra loss quite differently to the panthers and last night loss… They’re very different
There’s an argument the top 8 rewards mediocrity and winning 50:% of your games shouldn’t get you a finals berth, but it is what it is
Games we “should have won” - how do you define or limit that? The games where we were close behind the opposition at the end? The games where we led near the end? The games where we went in as large favourites? The games where we had a massive comeback? The games where our opponents had men in the bin or key injuries mid-match? The games where our opponents were weakened by suspension or rep season? All winnable scenarios, same as any match before kickoff, they are all winnable.
You may consider Penrith and Eels losses as different, but what is the material difference? Both are games we could have won because we are as good a side as either of those. One has less impact on the season just because Eels piled on tries? Eels that then went on to lose to Newcastle and get smashed by Melbourne, who we almost beat. So it’s very reasonable to argue that we really should have won the Eels game, because they struggled against opposition which we have proven able to match. But you reject the Eels match as not relevant to our finals chances simply because we lost by 40?
Any game you lose is a game you lost. Doesn’t matter if you lost it in the 5th minute or the 77th minute, by 1 or 50. The margin is only relevant to your opinion of how we played, and to the F/A. Melbourne’s first and last tries were all worth 4 points. The first 5 minutes are as important as the last 5. Everything you do in a match leads to some other consequence.
Recall if you will the Tigers-Eels game from 2012. Tigers were up 31-0, with Benji potting a FG just before half time, then Eels scored their first try at the 66th minute. They went on to score 5 converted tries in the last 14 minutes, plus one other disallowed, to lose 31-30. Now is that a match Eels should have won? They had all the running at the end of the game, finished clearly stronger, and it begs the question how they possibly could go scoreless for 66 minutes then put 30 on in 14. So when did the Eels lose the game? Allowing Benji to take a cheap FG at 39 mins? Allowing Tigers to even get 31 points ahead? Not chancing their arm earlier? No, the answer is that they could have won by doing any of a hundred things better, but they didn’t and unfortunately for them, regulation matches don’t run for 85 minutes. It was a loss, same value as any other loss, same missed opportunity, same cost to their season.
Went to this game, was very impressed by what Madge is achieving, very well coached and great set plays, Ryan Matterson is a great buy, and the wing is Jennings spot. Please resign Mickaele and Twal. Craig Bellamy complained it was a slow game, Cameron Smith rules the pace and referees, in 45 years of watching games I have never seen a Captain keep his players behind the posts after a conversion for 1 minute, and the refs said nothing, he continually harassed the refs, the supporters even Boo
@Tiger_Steve said in Tough one to take': Wests Tigers rue the one that got away:
The concern for me is that whilst I agree that we are improving in general, there is no improvement in our ability to close out a game. I was there last night and from about the 50 minute mark our attack changed significantly. We stopped throwing the ball around and went back to that grinding style of play. We were protecting the lead and we basically stopped playing footy. Imo we need to develop a mindset that we keep playing for 80 as opposed to getting to a lead and shutting up shop. Good effort but so disappointing
I’m curious to how you feel we can measure improvement in closing out a match? Most teams win half the close ones and again in 2019, that’s where we are. We have closed out matches this year, e.g. Titans and Broncos, but also lost 2 close ones. So there’s your 50%.
When it comes to how you actually close out matches, I do take your point that sometimes it’s better to keep playing than try to go defensively-minded. But also that’s not always true, sometimes if you keep playing attacking or expansive football you make mistakes and give the opposition opportunities.
Fundamentally, do we have a roster that is honestly capable of closing out > 50% of close games against quality opposition? This wasn’t the Penrith game where they bumbled their way to a lucky try then kicked a long-range FG. Melbourne were outplayed for most of the match, but they have a superior roster - not only capable of turning matches but proven effective at doing it.
So personally I think the ability to “close out” matches is about what you should expect from a team like Tigers 2019 - about 50% strike rate. A lot of that is not just coaching, it’s about roster and having the key players across the park to make the big plays at the end of the game when the opposition is most desperate.
Last night it wasn’t attack that failed, it was key defensive lapses. Unfortunately those types of defensive mistakes were spread across the side, but fortunately the fix is relatively straightforward - you can’t teach speed, but you sure as hell can teach defence.
@Snake said in Maguire urges Tigers to play the imitation game:
@gallagher This is a prime example of the fools that run our club and do not forget the losses at each game at Campbelltown !
I thought that 20k wasnt much of a carrot to go to Tamworth, then when I heard we got $200k for magic round and the riff get $200k to go to Bathurst it blew my mind.
I dont get what Tamworth does for us. Its good for the NRL and good for Tamworth, but whats it do for us?
@Tweed_Tiger said in The Ice Project(PODCAST) Ft The Wests Tigers:
@hobbo1 Are you able to see the link in my 2nd post. I think I messed something up editing my original post as the video is there but its faded out.
Yeah …all good now !!