Jolls
Well-known member
Yes, missed that - 20/40s. Getting it right definitely shifts momentum; but get it wrong.......
I can't find any stats on 20/40s for 2025. I need to keep digging. Anyone recall games where they were kicked?
Wests Tigers Deep Dive of the Week
- Thread starter Jolls
- Start date
I can't find any stats on 20/40s for 2025. I need to keep digging. Anyone recall games where they were kicked?
All great stats and I agree with your summation however as ink said I was saying 20-40s as momentum changers.
40-20s I think are usually executed when a team is on top to further ram home their advantage. They are typically still left late in the count and performed after a fast play the ball when wingers are caught between needing to drop and getting sucked inwards due to the middle collapsing in.
Getting it wrong having dire consequences is really only if you've kicked out on the full. There is no excuse, skills wise, for that to happen. Yes you are conceding a little territory by kicking early but realistically how much territory when the alternative is a couple extra hit ups and kicking straight down the fullbacks throat?
Jolls
Well-known member
I follow the logic but think that the issue is that you are kicking so deep in your own half that you are handing over possesion (if it doesn't go out) in good field position. I haven't looked at the 25 Stats but the 24 stats we were one of the worst for starting our sets deep in our own half and handing the ball over to the opposition shallow in theirs. So it may well be a deliberate coaching decision.
I agree that it a 20/40 is executed correctly it is a momentum changer; however, across the board I don't recall seeing one executed in 2025. I also can't find any data that shows successful 20/40 or 40/20 vs attempted.
It would be interesting to dig into, as this would validate you assertion that skills wise there is no excuse for it not to be successful. I don't disagree with the statement, I just don't have any evidence that supports it - and not being a kicker, or playing with that rule during my playing days I don't have any practical experience to fall back on either.
I expect that 20/40s are rare for three reasons:
- Opportunity/geometry makes it difficult to find a 20/40 window. To get the reward you need the ball to go 60+ metres with a favourable bounce with no contest. The combination of kick launched from inside 20m + ball goes out inside opposition 40m + opponent out of position probably limits the execution window.
- High risk. If you miss, you give up territory and have probably provided a team with momentum a good attacking position. The negative payoff if it fails is greater than other options and modern coaches prefer season-long "risk management.
- Coaching & practice emphasis. I expect that Benji and co consider the 20/40 and 40/20 to be a low value event with high execution difficulty in comparison to other options. Given that coaching time is allocated to repeatable, high-value skills like repeatable repeats: set plays, repeatable kicking moves such as grubbers, high kicks, or short grubbers inside the 20. Players who kick for field position are trained and encouraged to pursue the coach-approved plays — so it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. A slef licking ice cream that stifles on your feet thinking.
While I agree that NRL level kickers should have the skill set to execute 20/40s the rarity is mostly likely a mix of: low natural opportunity + high execution difficulty + modern tactical risk aversion.
Last edited:
My argument isn't so much that it would be highly successful. It would be defended more often than it would be successful. My argument of it as a skill is that it should very rarely, if ever, go horribly wrong i.e out on the full.
Let's say it is typically kicked on the 3rd, in the likely event it is defended, even relatively easy is the outcome really any worse to taking 2 more runs and kicking on the last?
It would be a clearing kick collected about the 30m and returned to about 40m. Then next couple plays will likely be one out runs getting just past the 50m as they centralise possession and get back behind the ball.
Yes it is obviously still good territory for the opposition but let's now look at the alternative.
Instead of attempting the 20-40 you instead take 2 extra hit ups. This gains you a likely 15m(ish). You can't really spread the ball out of trouble as the defence is winning the ruck (as it has been noted they have the momentum) and the wingers are up as they aren't scared of an early kick.
Last tackle comes you kick long but the back 3 are ready for it, they collect the ball on the full just inside the 20 and return it to just over the 30. Next run still probably one out for about 7m. The following, well the centres and a few forwards are already back as they weren't pushing forward on our last. They throw a little extra shape (nothing threatening, just enough for us to not dominate the tackle) and get another 10m. They are now about 5m worse off for us waiting until the last to kick. But they are instead in a better position ruck speed wise where they can now use that momentum they've enjoyed. In my opinion this is possibly a worse outcome to if you kick early (unsuccessfully) for a 20-40 (noting this tactic is only used as a momentum breaker).
But let's look at the other considerations. Reduced risk of an error conceding red zone possession. Increased chance to spread out of trouble with opposition wingers needing to retreat early to defend the kick. Obviously the chance of a successful 20-40, particularly if the opposition wingers don't drop. As I said the kick itself is a very easy skill. With the only real potential negative being kicked out on the full. Once again no excuse to not execute the kick (it being collected by the back 3 isn't a failure of execution).
I haven't looked at the 25 Stats but the 24 stats we were one of the worst for starting our sets deep in our own half and handing the ball over to the opposition shallow in theirs
Clearly the status quo isn't working. We are getting poor outcomes trying to run the ball out of our end. So, we need to find an alternative.
As for your 3 dot points.
The distance is an easy kick for a first grade half. Yes you still need the geometry and the bounce but it is still a simple enough kick.
The fullback will of course be back but he would very rarely be in position to collect on the full as early he is typically the only one back. This not only increases your chances of successful attempt but reduced their kick return metres. If the wingers are back this is a win for us as it creates a reduced defensive line.
As outlined above I think the risk is really minimal when you compare the outcomes of attempting and not.
Coaching, well you have listed kicks as repeatable skills to be coached. Why not coach and practice (or repeat) a punchy 20-40 kick? It would be a practiced skill like any other.
innsaneink
Well-known member
Youve just had a defensive set in the red zone ...or your own half...two or three hit ups by the wingers and then forwards have to chase a 20/40 attempt and defend again....i think those extra 2 or 3 tackles the forwards are using for a breather are crucial...id say thats why its not a favourable tactic
