Scoring points still a problem

Jux said:
Our biggest problem, after not having a proper halfback, is our lack of support play. Api, Klem, Ice, Bateman, heck even Twal, all make good ground and when they look around to offload NOTHING.
The halfback problem is not a quick fix, but bloody hell, supporting the ball carrier should be.
Click to expand...
100%. These moments only appear every 2nd or 3rd set but you gotta be prepared to pounce on them. A team like Brisbane have turned a corner basically by doing that. Most of their points are scored from kicks or offloads.
 
Anyway who watches most NRL games each week would notice the fullback is just as important, if not more important than the halves when it comes to creating attacking and try scoring opportunities.
All the teams scoring plenty of tries, most of them come from their fullback chiming in as second or third receiver then either getting on the outside of their immediate defender with their speed or hitting their centre or winger with a perfectly timed pass.
I agree Bula is doing great for a young player just starting his NRL career, but is fullback his best position from an attacking and points scoring point of view ?
 
Vicious said:
Anyway who watches most NRL games each week would notice the fullback is just as important, if not more important than the halves when it comes to creating attacking and try scoring opportunities.
All the teams scoring plenty of tries, most of them come from their fullback chiming in as second or third receiver then either getting on the outside of their immediate defender with their speed or hitting their centre or winger with a perfectly timed pass.
I agree Bula is doing great for a young player just starting his NRL career, but is fullback his best position from an attacking and points scoring point of view ?
Click to expand...
for the team at the moment it is,Laurie (reggies) did not defend as well as Bula ,on Saturday with the game on the line,hope the kid stays with us and gets more accolades then Benjie Farrah n them lot
 
Spartan117 said:
Sheens has acknowledged this as the next issue that needs focus.

I'm very happy that we are becoming a team that plays straight up footy with 90% completions.

We need to continue to.make it hard for other teams to score.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you,most on here say we need to put Laurie in,sack Wakeham,sack Brooks...but you all miss the major point ...ITS THE COACHING,you can say what you like but the coach sees the problems and makes sure that the problem is rectified...all and sundry are saying that Brooks,Wakeham cant convert opportunity into points,this has gone on for 11 weeks,dont you think the OLD BOYS CLUB coaches would address this by trying a new game plan,watch videos of the past games,practise new moves that the opposition havent studied,I mean I have played the game years ago,if it didnt work TRY SOMETHING NEW,it gets boring that we know Brooks kicks on the last or goes down on the last, Wakeham will pass rather than run,geez its not hard ,we are paying the coaches big money for results all we get is the same old same old,no wonder we are a basket case...
Brooks and Wakeham are doing their best,if Sheens doesnt want to swap Books to 5/8 and let Wakeham do the 7 job then how do we know it wont work?it hasnt been tried because the old boys club think they know best,Benji was a play whats in front of you,Farah was a leader Sheens was good but got sacked...try something different for a change and stop playing back in 2005 and maybe,just maybe the winning results will come...
 
i like to think the Coaching staff is playing the long game for long term success,that is worth waiting 4,they;ve proven their willing to splash the cash, rectified some weaknesss,this year, blah blah
 
I don’t think a Halfback’s individual skill is the main decisive weapon in a Rugby League team like it was a decade ago or so. (And earlier). E.g thurston, Johns etc.

The role is still important, but because there are so many things penalized now, and less breaks in play and mistakes are so costly. Its a far more athletic and formulaic game now. (Still exciting.)

If you don’t have enough players who can break the line and make something happen on their own it’s a tough ask for any HB. I can’t help but feel like this is the situation we were in against Souths.

Happy to hear other opinions on this
 
The Ladies Man said:
Number 7 is the problem.
Changed next year thank God
Click to expand...

I would not be too sure about that,you do realise that Shonky played Johnie Cronk for 3 years at half back despite it being obvious he was ill suited for the position.Who knows Tim is so full of himself that he may even just try to turn one of our current players into a 7 because his ego tells him it will work or even get a 9 from elsewhere to try.
Nothing is obvious with Tim except for the continual excuses
 
Merlot said:
its infuriating to watch them stand still,all bunched just handing it to each other ,going 7meteres sideways n 1 back from the original tackle
Click to expand...
Waiting for a teammate to take the initiative?
I like what I heard Ivan say to his players..a last minute motivator as they were heading out the door. ‘There will be 4 or 5 of you who will turn this game on it’s head and win it for us today..be one of those 4 or 5!’
The trouble with having a novice coach is they tend to talk too much, micro manage. Benji is always talking, I thought he was going to be like a Wayne Bennett style of coach? “A man manager” he said?
 
The funny thing is that we are doing the hard things right finally by being in the opposite 20, making yards and quick play the balls.
 
tig_prmz said:
The funny thing is that we are doing the hard things right finally by being in the opposite 20, making yards and quick play the balls.
Click to expand...
Which means execution in that zone is letting us down. Our halves are responsible for creating the opportunities there. Wakeham/Doueihi and Brooks are not doing enough. I said that this would be a problem against Souths. We were good enough to hang on for 71 minutes but class sides will always find a way. We have to be able to score points, especially when it's a Sheens philosophy.
 
tig_prmz said:
The funny thing is that we are doing the hard things right finally by being in the opposite 20, making yards and quick play the balls.
Click to expand...
We just need a stable team with plenty of game time on their resume. Especially goes for our outside backs. Our main ball handlers also had no preseason.
That’s the advantage Souths had..virtually an unchanged team from the team that played 3 finals games last year. Souths didn’t sign anyone for 23 while we signed 8 newbies to the club, or 9 if you count Nofa.
 
twentyforty said:
We just need a stable team with plenty of game time on their resume. Especially goes for our outside backs. Our main ball handlers also had no preseason.
That’s the advantage Souths had..virtually an unchanged team from the team that played 3 finals games last year. Souths didn’t sign anyone for 23 while we signed 8 newbies to the club, or 9 if you count Nofa.
Click to expand...
I posted most of this in the live game thread so it is a double up, but it is quite relevant to this topic.

I agree wholeheartedly with the need for stability to develop combinations. However, picking and sticking with Brooks and Wakeham is a problem. Brooks and Wakeham are too similar and don't offer much as a combination except consistency on the left and right side of the field. I just don't think we can afford to have them playing as a combination for the rest of the season. When used as a combination they don't dig into the line. Wakeham in particular passes too early.

I think it is time to experiment with a replacement in Cup. Daino is on the outer and from all reports is probably done at the club; however, I feel that despite his flaws off the field he may be the player we have that has the ability to produce some spark in the opposition's 20. The other option is Pellow, one we need to keep an eye on in cup - but clearly we need to develop and option or two if we are going to get off the bottom of the ladder.
On the game plan. I think we could change two things in the oppositions 20 and to improve our ability to put points on the board. Changes we could make even if we do stick with a Brooks/Wakeham combination.
  • End of set play. We need the halves to play what they see instead of low % bombs that result in us handing the ball over 1-5m out. Mix up the options, a bomb, a grubber, a stacked shift to a corner with an IP, Bateman or Twal as the targeted runner. We simply ask more questions of the defence.
  • Second phase play. Instead of running a perpetual set of drop off plays around the ruck and first receiver. change the dimension of it. Drop off to, or run, a simple X/Y play off Klemmer/Stefano one or two passes wide. This will provide second phase options for an ICE/Bateman running lines or a "fill in" backline shift. Subtle change, low risk but higher probability of success.
Nothing drastic here but certainly enough to improve our diabolical attacking stats and it doesn't take a brilliant set of halves to execute. Certainly within the capabilities of Brooks and Wakeham as they aren't doing any thinking just executing. Surely Api has the capacity to call a "3 for" play from hooker.
 
Spartan117 said:
Sheens has acknowledged this as the next issue that needs focus.

I'm very happy that we are becoming a team that plays straight up footy with 90% completions.

We need to continue to.make it hard for other teams to score.
Click to expand...
Round 12 and we start to work on it. Fair dinkum.

That's why we have offensive and defensive coaches. We do everything at the same time.

The fact that we didn't look to score until the 72nd minute is on the coaching staff. To beat South's we would of had to score 3 tries minimum.

Wasted opportunity.
 
Cultured_Bogan said:
Jolls said:
Jolls said:
I posted most of this in the live game thread so it is a double up, but it is quite relevant to this topic.

I agree wholeheartedly with the need for stability to develop combinations. However, picking and sticking with Brooks and Wakeham is a problem. Brooks and Wakeham are too similar and don't offer much as a combination except consistency on the left and right side of the field. I just don't think we can afford to have them playing as a combination for the rest of the season. When used as a combination they don't dig into the line. Wakeham in particular passes too early.

I think it is time to experiment with a replacement in Cup. Daino is on the outer and from all reports is probably done at the club; however, I feel that despite his flaws off the field he may be the player we have that has the ability to produce some spark in the opposition's 20. The other option is Pellow, one we need to keep an eye on in cup - but clearly we need to develop and option or two if we are going to get off the bottom of the ladder.
On the game plan. I think we could change two things in the oppositions 20 and to improve our ability to put points on the board. Changes we could make even if we do stick with a Brooks/Wakeham combination.
  • End of set play. We need the halves to play what they see instead of low % bombs that result in us handing the ball over 1-5m out. Mix up the options, a bomb, a grubber, a stacked shift to a corner with an IP, Bateman or Twal as the targeted runner. We simply ask more questions of the defence.
  • Second phase play. Instead of running a perpetual set of drop off plays around the ruck and first receiver. change the dimension of it. Drop off to, or run, a simple X/Y play off Klemmer/Stefano one or two passes wide. This will provide second phase options for an ICE/Bateman running lines or a "fill in" backline shift. Subtle change, low risk but higher probability of success.
Nothing drastic here but certainly enough to improve our diabolical attacking stats and it doesn't take a brilliant set of halves to execute. Certainly within the capabilities of Brooks and Wakeham as they aren't doing any thinking just executing. Surely Api has the capacity to call a "3 for" play from hooker.
Click to expand...

I posted most of this in the live game thread so it is a double up, but it is quite relevant to this topic.

I agree wholeheartedly with the need for stability to develop combinations. However, picking and sticking with Brooks and Wakeham is a problem. Brooks and Wakeham are too similar and don't offer much as a combination except consistency on the left and right side of the field. I just don't think we can afford to have them playing as a combination for the rest of the season. When used as a combination they don't dig into the line. Wakeham in particular passes too early.

I think it is time to experiment with a replacement in Cup. Daino is on the outer and from all reports is probably done at the club; however, I feel that despite his flaws off the field he may be the player we have that has the ability to produce some spark in the opposition's 20. The other option is Pellow, one we need to keep an eye on in cup - but clearly we need to develop and option or two if we are going to get off the bottom of the ladder.
On the game plan. I think we could change two things in the oppositions 20 and to improve our ability to put points on the board. Changes we could make even if we do stick with a Brooks/Wakeham combination.
  • End of set play. We need the halves to play what they see instead of low % bombs that result in us handing the ball over 1-5m out. Mix up the options, a bomb, a grubber, a stacked shift to a corner with an IP, Bateman or Twal as the targeted runner. We simply ask more questions of the defence.
  • Second phase play. Instead of running a perpetual set of drop off plays around the ruck and first receiver. change the dimension of it. Drop off to, or run, a simple X/Y play off Klemmer/Stefano one or two passes wide. This will provide second phase options for an ICE/Bateman running lines or a "fill in" backline shift. Subtle change, low risk but higher probability of success.
Nothing drastic here but certainly enough to improve our diabolical attacking stats and it doesn't take a brilliant set of halves to execute. Certainly within the capabilities of Brooks and Wakeham as they aren't doing any thinking just executing. Surely Api has the capacity to call a "3 for" play from hooker.
Click to expand...

Which means execution in that zone is letting us down. Our halves are responsible for creating the opportunities there. Wakeham/Doueihi and Brooks are not doing enough. I said that this would be a problem against Souths. We were good enough to hang on for 71 minutes but class sides will always find a way. We have to be able to score points, especially when it's a Sheens philosophy.
Click to expand...
Good points, good ideas Jolls.
I’m not for changing the halves again so soon, if at all.
The word I keep seeing on this forum is “creativity.”
“We lack creativity in the halves.”
I agree our coaches need to foster creativity, in all team members and especially the halves.
The question is how to do that?
If we take out the 2 experienced and skilled halves and replace them with 2 less skilled and experienced will it be the kind of creativity we’re looking for?
I’m sure most would agree we’ve seen steady improvement since the Manly game.
This is mainly due to positional stability.
Will we see positive creativity improving by destabilising the team with position changes?
 
mikey said:
I'm in. When do we start, or are we waiting for Earl to tee off? 🙂
Click to expand...
Not sure why our halves get a raw deal on here 😜
I disagree that they lost us the Souths game.
Anyone notice who made the breaks and scored the tries for Souths?
Yes, their outside backs, the same guys who got all the Dally M points. It wasn’t Ilias or Walker as many here are suggesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 469 (members: 0, guests: 469)
Back
Top