Effort Analysis

[carltonleach]

Does anyone know how many tackle real has made in the first 2 games and how many he has missed?

Edit- just worked it out

 

[Newtown]

Does anyone know how many tackle real has made in the first 2 games and how many he has missed?

Edit- just worked it out

When you get a player like BJ Leluia hardly breaking out of stroll over the full course of the match it's no wonder the rest of the backline (and forwards) get p.o. with the bludger.

 

[carltonleach]

Does anyone know how many tackle real has made in the first 2 games and how many he has missed?

Edit- just worked it out

When you get a player like BJ Leluia hardly breaking out of stroll over the full course of the match it's no wonder the rest of the backline (and forwards) get p.o. with the bludger.

Oops just re-read what I posted was meant to be twal (stupid auto correct)

 

[Geo]

Does anyone know how many tackle real has made in the first 2 games and how many he has missed?

Edit- just worked it out

When you get a player like BJ Leluia hardly breaking out of stroll over the full course of the match it's no wonder the rest of the backline (and forwards) get p.o. with the bludger.

Oops just re-read what I posted was meant to be twal (stupid auto correct)

So how many..?

 

[carltonleach]

Does anyone know how many tackle real has made in the first 2 games and how many he has missed?

Edit- just worked it out

When you get a player like BJ Leluia hardly breaking out of stroll over the full course of the match it's no wonder the rest of the backline (and forwards) get p.o. with the bludger.

Oops just re-read what I posted was meant to be twal (stupid auto correct)

So how many..?

80 tackles 78 made and 2 missed
Hes a savage in defense
38 made 1 missed in the raiders game 59 minutes
40 made 1 missed in rorters game 50 minutes

 

[jirskyr]

My thoughts of the game were.

We had momentum with them for the first 8 Minutes In my opinion.

there was also a period there that the Roosters were dead just like us, somewhere around the 20 minute mark after they ravaged us there for abit.

Personally, I was screaming at the TV because there were so many times we could have taken advantage of them but we didn't capitalise on it.

Although, with multiple times in the oppositions 20 not getting 6 again calls, pretty much killed us.. but then people talk about the last 5 minutes of the first half where we got 5-6 back to back calls of 6 agains to say it was even to equal it up..

the last 40, they demolished us, no excuses really.

That's the part where people got so upset with Brooks. Overall Brooks didn't have a horrendous 80 mins, however there were a few clutch periods where we were fighting back into the match, and he basically bombed it - even though it was his own play that got us on the front-foot in the first place.

Roosters fought tooth and nail to keep us out, but they have arguably the world's best footballer going around and he was everywhere in defence.

When the Roosters got their opportunities, our defence was extremely brittle out wide and Keary had a field day. Roosters executed almost everything properly, apart from a Morris dropped ball, to the point where they are making kicks back in-field and finding 4 runners. Just a much smarter, wily rugby league team.

If we keep out those first 1-2 tries with smarter and tougher defending, it really is an arm wrestle.

Watching the Sharks/Raiders game on Sunday night, that's basically what the Sharks did. They were very much on tilt to get blown away by the Raiders but they didn't make any horrendous defensive mistakes and eventually Raiders lost their momentum, it became a tight match. Sharks never really looked like winning it IMO, despite opportunities to kick for the win/draw.

 

[TCL]

I thought of this stuff after the game but haven't had time to verify my thoughts.

Brooks kicking and end of set options were atrocious, there is no denying that. And there are a lot of people that have cut Brooks, and thats their opinion and thats fine. We are a forum sharing ideas.

But I havent written of Brooks yet, on the basis that he hasn't exactly had the support required. There is a presumption from some that every WT player on those last tackles is in position, ready with several options, and Brooks always takes the worst one. I think this is incorrect.

The times I recall, Brooks got the feed from Dummy half on the last or second last, and there was no one there. There were no forwards coming through giving options, the outside backs werent even in position and ready, and generally most were standing on the short side or close to the ruck, lazy or out of breath.

Brooks gets the ball, looks at his options (of which there are none because most are standing there like tools) and so what is he to do.

I saw one stage when Brooks decided to try and get quick ball out, so he passed to Doeuhi, who was not moving, literally didnt move his feet, and on passed it to some other knucklehead standing 3 foot away from him. It looked like an under 7s game at the local park where they have to pass 3 times before you can run.

Its alright to say Brooks isnt taking the right options but the Roosters game highlighted the fact that very often, he doesnt have any.

Now some will respond by saying "well Brooks runs the team, he should get them into position". To that I say - if it only worked like that. Cooper Cronk never had these issues because his teams were well drilled to be where they were supposed to be. He proved it in the GF where he did nothing and the team went without him.

Brooks cant make players get off their a$$ and start being lazy and make some second efforts. So I think he will make a sufficient NRL halfback in the right team. Changing him for Adam Reynolds (which has been the joke of the week suggested by some) doesnt make the forwards get into position and offer options, or get the backline in order ready to capitalise on an option taken by the playmaker.

Well said Swordy - the only thing I would add.... they (Rorters) were offside quite a few times + the times they were on side with incredible line speed - gave Brooks no time to set for the kick on the majority of the sets. The opposition knew that he had no other option but to kick because none of our our players gave him an option. It is almost like the rest of the team are thinking ...ok we've put in for the first five tackles and made 35 metres, now it is your turn on the sixth ... we are going to have a rest. Need a bomb under all of them, only AJ maybe has an injury excuse, no one has an unfit excuse - they need to work as a team, they have not done this in the first games. I think this is the main problem...Not Brooks. With no options Reynolds wouldn't be any better, even Cronk would struggle.

But its Brooks job to organize his set of six ......organize the runners ...the line he wants them to run ...where he wants to be by tackle 5

Brooks is the problem obviously and the excuses need to stop.

I disagree Happy . It’s not spontaneous football they play . They work to a position on the field , to setup whatever play they called to run , which would have been a lot of the time 2-3 plays earlier . If your saying there’s an inability to play eyes up footy , well I agree with you. But people standing in the centre of the field when a block play down thier edge is called , is ? their fault.

Brooks needs to call these guys out , with some serious on field abuse , and that’s brooks problem .
I saw Munster do it a couple weeks back , Moses does it every single set of 6 , etc. he’s too good of a bloke . I guess that’s his issue . But that’s an easy fix , to me .

Every situation is different of course , but they probably have a Plan A,B and C depending if they are coming from a 22 tap ,scrum ,penalty set restart etc ...yes they play eyes up footy , but they practice how they run a set 1000 times .....

The idea that is even if you hit the 85 minute mark and are mentally and physically exhausted ...these Plans and sets come second nature

So essentially they should all know what they are doing and should not need someone to tell them what to do. Brooks just needs to call the play and everyone knows their job.

So when he looks across the park and everyone is flat footed or not following up a line break or drops the ball is it his fault alone.

You have played football at a high level. Was the halfback blamed for your losses?

 

[Geo]

All I know is the Rorters had more jersey's in the frame than Wests Tigers for the majority of the game..

 

[happy_tiger]

I thought of this stuff after the game but haven't had time to verify my thoughts.

Brooks kicking and end of set options were atrocious, there is no denying that. And there are a lot of people that have cut Brooks, and thats their opinion and thats fine. We are a forum sharing ideas.

But I havent written of Brooks yet, on the basis that he hasn't exactly had the support required. There is a presumption from some that every WT player on those last tackles is in position, ready with several options, and Brooks always takes the worst one. I think this is incorrect.

The times I recall, Brooks got the feed from Dummy half on the last or second last, and there was no one there. There were no forwards coming through giving options, the outside backs werent even in position and ready, and generally most were standing on the short side or close to the ruck, lazy or out of breath.

Brooks gets the ball, looks at his options (of which there are none because most are standing there like tools) and so what is he to do.

I saw one stage when Brooks decided to try and get quick ball out, so he passed to Doeuhi, who was not moving, literally didnt move his feet, and on passed it to some other knucklehead standing 3 foot away from him. It looked like an under 7s game at the local park where they have to pass 3 times before you can run.

Its alright to say Brooks isnt taking the right options but the Roosters game highlighted the fact that very often, he doesnt have any.

Now some will respond by saying "well Brooks runs the team, he should get them into position". To that I say - if it only worked like that. Cooper Cronk never had these issues because his teams were well drilled to be where they were supposed to be. He proved it in the GF where he did nothing and the team went without him.

Brooks cant make players get off their a$$ and start being lazy and make some second efforts. So I think he will make a sufficient NRL halfback in the right team. Changing him for Adam Reynolds (which has been the joke of the week suggested by some) doesnt make the forwards get into position and offer options, or get the backline in order ready to capitalise on an option taken by the playmaker.

Well said Swordy - the only thing I would add.... they (Rorters) were offside quite a few times + the times they were on side with incredible line speed - gave Brooks no time to set for the kick on the majority of the sets. The opposition knew that he had no other option but to kick because none of our our players gave him an option. It is almost like the rest of the team are thinking ...ok we've put in for the first five tackles and made 35 metres, now it is your turn on the sixth ... we are going to have a rest. Need a bomb under all of them, only AJ maybe has an injury excuse, no one has an unfit excuse - they need to work as a team, they have not done this in the first games. I think this is the main problem...Not Brooks. With no options Reynolds wouldn't be any better, even Cronk would struggle.

But its Brooks job to organize his set of six ......organize the runners ...the line he wants them to run ...where he wants to be by tackle 5

Brooks is the problem obviously and the excuses need to stop.

I disagree Happy . It’s not spontaneous football they play . They work to a position on the field , to setup whatever play they called to run , which would have been a lot of the time 2-3 plays earlier . If your saying there’s an inability to play eyes up footy , well I agree with you. But people standing in the centre of the field when a block play down thier edge is called , is ? their fault.

Brooks needs to call these guys out , with some serious on field abuse , and that’s brooks problem .
I saw Munster do it a couple weeks back , Moses does it every single set of 6 , etc. he’s too good of a bloke . I guess that’s his issue . But that’s an easy fix , to me .

Every situation is different of course , but they probably have a Plan A,B and C depending if they are coming from a 22 tap ,scrum ,penalty set restart etc ...yes they play eyes up footy , but they practice how they run a set 1000 times .....

The idea that is even if you hit the 85 minute mark and are mentally and physically exhausted ...these Plans and sets come second nature

So essentially they should all know what they are doing and should not need someone to tell them what to do. Brooks just needs to call the play and everyone knows their job.

So when he looks across the park and everyone is flat footed or not following up a line break or drops the ball is it his fault alone.

You have played football at a high level. Was the halfback blamed for your losses?

Long time ago ....I guess your forwards were so important as it was still played under the 5 metre rule

You knew if you played well and you knew if you didn't or felt like you had let your team down

Probably the tackle i missed on Kelly Egan stands out ....they scored and we lost either 10-4 or 10-6 .....knowing that something you did or didn't do ......or planned to come out with a different outcome lost the team the game ....

I was filthy at myself ...it's the worst feeling

But getting back to your point ....if the halfback called a play and players didn't show ...they knew about it

Brooks may not have the respect and or trust of the players around him ...add to that the obvious issue he has with his own confidence .....makes for a horrible recipe

 

[Geo]

So these guys most of whom have been playing Rugby League since they were 6 need to be told where to run and how too tackle..I'm starting to see the issue..

 

[TCL]

I thought of this stuff after the game but haven't had time to verify my thoughts.

Brooks kicking and end of set options were atrocious, there is no denying that. And there are a lot of people that have cut Brooks, and thats their opinion and thats fine. We are a forum sharing ideas.

But I havent written of Brooks yet, on the basis that he hasn't exactly had the support required. There is a presumption from some that every WT player on those last tackles is in position, ready with several options, and Brooks always takes the worst one. I think this is incorrect.

The times I recall, Brooks got the feed from Dummy half on the last or second last, and there was no one there. There were no forwards coming through giving options, the outside backs werent even in position and ready, and generally most were standing on the short side or close to the ruck, lazy or out of breath.

Brooks gets the ball, looks at his options (of which there are none because most are standing there like tools) and so what is he to do.

I saw one stage when Brooks decided to try and get quick ball out, so he passed to Doeuhi, who was not moving, literally didnt move his feet, and on passed it to some other knucklehead standing 3 foot away from him. It looked like an under 7s game at the local park where they have to pass 3 times before you can run.

Its alright to say Brooks isnt taking the right options but the Roosters game highlighted the fact that very often, he doesnt have any.

Now some will respond by saying "well Brooks runs the team, he should get them into position". To that I say - if it only worked like that. Cooper Cronk never had these issues because his teams were well drilled to be where they were supposed to be. He proved it in the GF where he did nothing and the team went without him.

Brooks cant make players get off their a$$ and start being lazy and make some second efforts. So I think he will make a sufficient NRL halfback in the right team. Changing him for Adam Reynolds (which has been the joke of the week suggested by some) doesnt make the forwards get into position and offer options, or get the backline in order ready to capitalise on an option taken by the playmaker.

Well said Swordy - the only thing I would add.... they (Rorters) were offside quite a few times + the times they were on side with incredible line speed - gave Brooks no time to set for the kick on the majority of the sets. The opposition knew that he had no other option but to kick because none of our our players gave him an option. It is almost like the rest of the team are thinking ...ok we've put in for the first five tackles and made 35 metres, now it is your turn on the sixth ... we are going to have a rest. Need a bomb under all of them, only AJ maybe has an injury excuse, no one has an unfit excuse - they need to work as a team, they have not done this in the first games. I think this is the main problem...Not Brooks. With no options Reynolds wouldn't be any better, even Cronk would struggle.

But its Brooks job to organize his set of six ......organize the runners ...the line he wants them to run ...where he wants to be by tackle 5

Brooks is the problem obviously and the excuses need to stop.

I disagree Happy . It’s not spontaneous football they play . They work to a position on the field , to setup whatever play they called to run , which would have been a lot of the time 2-3 plays earlier . If your saying there’s an inability to play eyes up footy , well I agree with you. But people standing in the centre of the field when a block play down thier edge is called , is ? their fault.

Brooks needs to call these guys out , with some serious on field abuse , and that’s brooks problem .
I saw Munster do it a couple weeks back , Moses does it every single set of 6 , etc. he’s too good of a bloke . I guess that’s his issue . But that’s an easy fix , to me .

Every situation is different of course , but they probably have a Plan A,B and C depending if they are coming from a 22 tap ,scrum ,penalty set restart etc ...yes they play eyes up footy , but they practice how they run a set 1000 times .....

The idea that is even if you hit the 85 minute mark and are mentally and physically exhausted ...these Plans and sets come second nature

So essentially they should all know what they are doing and should not need someone to tell them what to do. Brooks just needs to call the play and everyone knows their job.

So when he looks across the park and everyone is flat footed or not following up a line break or drops the ball is it his fault alone.

You have played football at a high level. Was the halfback blamed for your losses?

Long time ago ....I guess your forwards were so important as it was still played under the 5 metre rule

You knew if you played well and you knew if you didn't or felt like you had let your team down

Probably the tackle i missed on Kelly Egan stands out ....they scored and we lost either 10-4 or 10-6 .....knowing that something you did or didn't do ......or planned to come out with a different outcome lost the team the game ....

I was filthy at myself ...it's the worst feeling

But getting back to your point ....if the halfback called a play and players didn't show ...they knew about it

Brooks may not have the respect and or trust of the players around him ...add to that the obvious issue he has with his own confidence .....makes for a horrible recipe

Brooks has his issues no doubt about it. He blew some key moments in that game, but so did a lot of them.

Our set plays are really clunky and our backline hasn’t looked like flowing, but it is early days.

We had two line breaks against roosters, one was Brooks the other was Liddle, roosters had 7 . None of our pack with the exception of Twal made more than 100m, 5 of the roosters pack made more than 100m.

We just were not in that game. I don’t know if that is because they don’t respect Brooks but looking at the comparison, either this team is playing to their potential and we just have high hopes or they don’t even respect themselves putting out a performance like that and your right they should all be filthy with themselves.

 

[Needaname]

My thoughts of the game were.

We had momentum with them for the first 8 Minutes In my opinion.

there was also a period there that the Roosters were dead just like us, somewhere around the 20 minute mark after they ravaged us there for abit.

Personally, I was screaming at the TV because there were so many times we could have taken advantage of them but we didn't capitalise on it.

Although, with multiple times in the oppositions 20 not getting 6 again calls, pretty much killed us.. but then people talk about the last 5 minutes of the first half where we got 5-6 back to back calls of 6 agains to say it was even to equal it up..

the last 40, they demolished us, no excuses really.

That's the part where people got so upset with Brooks. Overall Brooks didn't have a horrendous 80 mins, however there were a few clutch periods where we were fighting back into the match, and he basically bombed it - even though it was his own play that got us on the front-foot in the first place.

Roosters fought tooth and nail to keep us out, but they have arguably the world's best footballer going around and he was everywhere in defence.

When the Roosters got their opportunities, our defence was extremely brittle out wide and Keary had a field day. Roosters executed almost everything properly, apart from a Morris dropped ball, to the point where they are making kicks back in-field and finding 4 runners. Just a much smarter, wily rugby league team.

If we keep out those first 1-2 tries with smarter and tougher defending, it really is an arm wrestle.

Watching the Sharks/Raiders game on Sunday night, that's basically what the Sharks did. They were very much on tilt to get blown away by the Raiders but they didn't make any horrendous defensive mistakes and eventually Raiders lost their momentum, it became a tight match. Sharks never really looked like winning it IMO, despite opportunities to kick for the win/draw.

Did you notice how every one of those plays out to Keary had the exact same shape?
First play- Keary dummies and tries to get inside Brooks. Instantly that’s made the defence think about compressing the second time round.
Next opportunity same shape again, and this time Keary gets the pass outside to Manu, Joey previously compressing because of the early Keary dummy hangs off that little bit longer.
Etc etc, same shape, multiple options, each time evolving on those options as they have created an element of doubt in the defence about what they can do to stop it.

Have you ever seen a tigers backline play worked that same way?
Post to Jason Taylor that is..

 

[jirskyr]

My thoughts of the game were.

We had momentum with them for the first 8 Minutes In my opinion.

there was also a period there that the Roosters were dead just like us, somewhere around the 20 minute mark after they ravaged us there for abit.

Personally, I was screaming at the TV because there were so many times we could have taken advantage of them but we didn't capitalise on it.

Although, with multiple times in the oppositions 20 not getting 6 again calls, pretty much killed us.. but then people talk about the last 5 minutes of the first half where we got 5-6 back to back calls of 6 agains to say it was even to equal it up..

the last 40, they demolished us, no excuses really.

That's the part where people got so upset with Brooks. Overall Brooks didn't have a horrendous 80 mins, however there were a few clutch periods where we were fighting back into the match, and he basically bombed it - even though it was his own play that got us on the front-foot in the first place.

Roosters fought tooth and nail to keep us out, but they have arguably the world's best footballer going around and he was everywhere in defence.

When the Roosters got their opportunities, our defence was extremely brittle out wide and Keary had a field day. Roosters executed almost everything properly, apart from a Morris dropped ball, to the point where they are making kicks back in-field and finding 4 runners. Just a much smarter, wily rugby league team.

If we keep out those first 1-2 tries with smarter and tougher defending, it really is an arm wrestle.

Watching the Sharks/Raiders game on Sunday night, that's basically what the Sharks did. They were very much on tilt to get blown away by the Raiders but they didn't make any horrendous defensive mistakes and eventually Raiders lost their momentum, it became a tight match. Sharks never really looked like winning it IMO, despite opportunities to kick for the win/draw.

Did you notice how every one of those plays out to Keary had the exact same shape?
First play- Keary dummies and tries to get inside Brooks. Instantly that’s made the defence think about compressing the second time round.
Next opportunity same shape again, and this time Keary gets the pass outside to Manu, Joey previously compressing because of the early Keary dummy hangs off that little bit longer.
Etc etc, same shape, multiple options, each time evolving on those options as they have created an element of doubt in the defence about what they can do to stop it.

Have you ever seen a tigers backline play worked that same way?
Post to Jason Taylor that is..

Well the thing is Luke Keary 99% of the time has Tedesco sweeping into the play and that causes half the drama.

Tedesco was already highly effective at the Tigers when he had to do all the work himself, let alone when he had a maestro passer picking and choosing when to give him the ball.

Keary is still an effective player but it would be a totally different thing if he was shaping up with players outside him like Corey Thompson or BJ Leilua.

Defences just don't get nervous trying to hold shape against weak backlines. Daine Laurie may start to change things when he really finds his stride, in a similar way to Papenhuyzen becoming more of a backline decoy weapon once defences got used to having to look out for him. In the early days of Paps he'd go through the middle or just use blistering pace, but now he is a known entity to defensive formations, it gives more breathing space for Munster and Hughes.

 

[happy_tiger]

My thoughts of the game were.

We had momentum with them for the first 8 Minutes In my opinion.

there was also a period there that the Roosters were dead just like us, somewhere around the 20 minute mark after they ravaged us there for abit.

Personally, I was screaming at the TV because there were so many times we could have taken advantage of them but we didn't capitalise on it.

Although, with multiple times in the oppositions 20 not getting 6 again calls, pretty much killed us.. but then people talk about the last 5 minutes of the first half where we got 5-6 back to back calls of 6 agains to say it was even to equal it up..

the last 40, they demolished us, no excuses really.

That's the part where people got so upset with Brooks. Overall Brooks didn't have a horrendous 80 mins, however there were a few clutch periods where we were fighting back into the match, and he basically bombed it - even though it was his own play that got us on the front-foot in the first place.

Roosters fought tooth and nail to keep us out, but they have arguably the world's best footballer going around and he was everywhere in defence.

When the Roosters got their opportunities, our defence was extremely brittle out wide and Keary had a field day. Roosters executed almost everything properly, apart from a Morris dropped ball, to the point where they are making kicks back in-field and finding 4 runners. Just a much smarter, wily rugby league team.

If we keep out those first 1-2 tries with smarter and tougher defending, it really is an arm wrestle.

Watching the Sharks/Raiders game on Sunday night, that's basically what the Sharks did. They were very much on tilt to get blown away by the Raiders but they didn't make any horrendous defensive mistakes and eventually Raiders lost their momentum, it became a tight match. Sharks never really looked like winning it IMO, despite opportunities to kick for the win/draw.

Did you notice how every one of those plays out to Keary had the exact same shape?
First play- Keary dummies and tries to get inside Brooks. Instantly that’s made the defence think about compressing the second time round.
Next opportunity same shape again, and this time Keary gets the pass outside to Manu, Joey previously compressing because of the early Keary dummy hangs off that little bit longer.
Etc etc, same shape, multiple options, each time evolving on those options as they have created an element of doubt in the defence about what they can do to stop it.

Have you ever seen a tigers backline play worked that same way?
Post to Jason Taylor that is..

Simply came down to the lack of lateral movement in both Lucy and BJ ....so easy for Keary to get on their outside and then becomes an overlap and a numbers game

 

[earl]

Does anyone know how many tackle real has made in the first 2 games and how many he has missed?

Edit- just worked it out

When you get a player like BJ Leluia hardly breaking out of stroll over the full course of the match it's no wonder the rest of the backline (and forwards) get p.o. with the bludger.

Oops just re-read what I posted was meant to be twal (stupid auto correct)

So how many..?

80 tackles 78 made and 2 missed
Hes a savage in defense
38 made 1 missed in the raiders game 59 minutes
40 made 1 missed in rorters game 50 minutes

I haven't been a fan of Twal but last game showed me how wrong my opinion was. He was in everything. Carting the ball up and defending like a demon.

 

[carltonleach]

Does anyone know how many tackle real has made in the first 2 games and how many he has missed?

Edit- just worked it out

When you get a player like BJ Leluia hardly breaking out of stroll over the full course of the match it's no wonder the rest of the backline (and forwards) get p.o. with the bludger.

Oops just re-read what I posted was meant to be twal (stupid auto correct)

So how many..?

80 tackles 78 made and 2 missed
Hes a savage in defense
38 made 1 missed in the raiders game 59 minutes
40 made 1 missed in rorters game 50 minutes

I haven't been a fan of Twal but last game showed me how wrong my opinion was. He was in everything. Carting the ball up and defending like a demon.

I've always liked him just for his defence. Pretty sure hes attempted 2337 tackles attempted and only missed 41 or something could be more like 2400 now with only 43 missed not 100% sure. His efficiency is sensational and he seems to be getting much more involved now in attack also. Hes a awesome player I reckon.

 

[Needaname]

My thoughts of the game were.

We had momentum with them for the first 8 Minutes In my opinion.

there was also a period there that the Roosters were dead just like us, somewhere around the 20 minute mark after they ravaged us there for abit.

Personally, I was screaming at the TV because there were so many times we could have taken advantage of them but we didn't capitalise on it.

Although, with multiple times in the oppositions 20 not getting 6 again calls, pretty much killed us.. but then people talk about the last 5 minutes of the first half where we got 5-6 back to back calls of 6 agains to say it was even to equal it up..

the last 40, they demolished us, no excuses really.

That's the part where people got so upset with Brooks. Overall Brooks didn't have a horrendous 80 mins, however there were a few clutch periods where we were fighting back into the match, and he basically bombed it - even though it was his own play that got us on the front-foot in the first place.

Roosters fought tooth and nail to keep us out, but they have arguably the world's best footballer going around and he was everywhere in defence.

When the Roosters got their opportunities, our defence was extremely brittle out wide and Keary had a field day. Roosters executed almost everything properly, apart from a Morris dropped ball, to the point where they are making kicks back in-field and finding 4 runners. Just a much smarter, wily rugby league team.

If we keep out those first 1-2 tries with smarter and tougher defending, it really is an arm wrestle.

Watching the Sharks/Raiders game on Sunday night, that's basically what the Sharks did. They were very much on tilt to get blown away by the Raiders but they didn't make any horrendous defensive mistakes and eventually Raiders lost their momentum, it became a tight match. Sharks never really looked like winning it IMO, despite opportunities to kick for the win/draw.

Did you notice how every one of those plays out to Keary had the exact same shape?
First play- Keary dummies and tries to get inside Brooks. Instantly that’s made the defence think about compressing the second time round.
Next opportunity same shape again, and this time Keary gets the pass outside to Manu, Joey previously compressing because of the early Keary dummy hangs off that little bit longer.
Etc etc, same shape, multiple options, each time evolving on those options as they have created an element of doubt in the defence about what they can do to stop it.

Have you ever seen a tigers backline play worked that same way?
Post to Jason Taylor that is..

Well the thing is Luke Keary 99% of the time has Tedesco sweeping into the play and that causes half the drama.

Tedesco was already highly effective at the Tigers when he had to do all the work himself, let alone when he had a maestro passer picking and choosing when to give him the ball.

Keary is still an effective player but it would be a totally different thing if he was shaping up with players outside him like Corey Thompson or BJ Leilua.

Defences just don't get nervous trying to hold shape against weak backlines. Daine Laurie may start to change things when he really finds his stride, in a similar way to Papenhuyzen becoming more of a backline decoy weapon once defences got used to having to look out for him. In the early days of Paps he'd go through the middle or just use blistering pace, but now he is a known entity to defensive formations, it gives more breathing space for Munster and Hughes.

Good point, just as I started reading your reply,I realised that the common denominator to our attacking structure under Taylor and the roosters is actually Tedesco. My point was more about how well drilled they are in that they can approach the line at speed every time with the players all in the same positions but choose probably any 1 of a possible 6 options.
But your point about Tedesco is very much valid.

 

[Needaname]

My thoughts of the game were.

We had momentum with them for the first 8 Minutes In my opinion.

there was also a period there that the Roosters were dead just like us, somewhere around the 20 minute mark after they ravaged us there for abit.

Personally, I was screaming at the TV because there were so many times we could have taken advantage of them but we didn't capitalise on it.

Although, with multiple times in the oppositions 20 not getting 6 again calls, pretty much killed us.. but then people talk about the last 5 minutes of the first half where we got 5-6 back to back calls of 6 agains to say it was even to equal it up..

the last 40, they demolished us, no excuses really.

That's the part where people got so upset with Brooks. Overall Brooks didn't have a horrendous 80 mins, however there were a few clutch periods where we were fighting back into the match, and he basically bombed it - even though it was his own play that got us on the front-foot in the first place.

Roosters fought tooth and nail to keep us out, but they have arguably the world's best footballer going around and he was everywhere in defence.

When the Roosters got their opportunities, our defence was extremely brittle out wide and Keary had a field day. Roosters executed almost everything properly, apart from a Morris dropped ball, to the point where they are making kicks back in-field and finding 4 runners. Just a much smarter, wily rugby league team.

If we keep out those first 1-2 tries with smarter and tougher defending, it really is an arm wrestle.

Watching the Sharks/Raiders game on Sunday night, that's basically what the Sharks did. They were very much on tilt to get blown away by the Raiders but they didn't make any horrendous defensive mistakes and eventually Raiders lost their momentum, it became a tight match. Sharks never really looked like winning it IMO, despite opportunities to kick for the win/draw.

Did you notice how every one of those plays out to Keary had the exact same shape?
First play- Keary dummies and tries to get inside Brooks. Instantly that’s made the defence think about compressing the second time round.
Next opportunity same shape again, and this time Keary gets the pass outside to Manu, Joey previously compressing because of the early Keary dummy hangs off that little bit longer.
Etc etc, same shape, multiple options, each time evolving on those options as they have created an element of doubt in the defence about what they can do to stop it.

Have you ever seen a tigers backline play worked that same way?
Post to Jason Taylor that is..

Simply came down to the lack of lateral movement in both Lucy and BJ ....so easy for Keary to get on their outside and then becomes an overlap and a numbers game

Yeah it would definitely been one of their target areas for their pre game plan and we just proved them right in every way.

 

[jirskyr]

My thoughts of the game were.

We had momentum with them for the first 8 Minutes In my opinion.

there was also a period there that the Roosters were dead just like us, somewhere around the 20 minute mark after they ravaged us there for abit.

Personally, I was screaming at the TV because there were so many times we could have taken advantage of them but we didn't capitalise on it.

Although, with multiple times in the oppositions 20 not getting 6 again calls, pretty much killed us.. but then people talk about the last 5 minutes of the first half where we got 5-6 back to back calls of 6 agains to say it was even to equal it up..

the last 40, they demolished us, no excuses really.

That's the part where people got so upset with Brooks. Overall Brooks didn't have a horrendous 80 mins, however there were a few clutch periods where we were fighting back into the match, and he basically bombed it - even though it was his own play that got us on the front-foot in the first place.

Roosters fought tooth and nail to keep us out, but they have arguably the world's best footballer going around and he was everywhere in defence.

When the Roosters got their opportunities, our defence was extremely brittle out wide and Keary had a field day. Roosters executed almost everything properly, apart from a Morris dropped ball, to the point where they are making kicks back in-field and finding 4 runners. Just a much smarter, wily rugby league team.

If we keep out those first 1-2 tries with smarter and tougher defending, it really is an arm wrestle.

Watching the Sharks/Raiders game on Sunday night, that's basically what the Sharks did. They were very much on tilt to get blown away by the Raiders but they didn't make any horrendous defensive mistakes and eventually Raiders lost their momentum, it became a tight match. Sharks never really looked like winning it IMO, despite opportunities to kick for the win/draw.

Did you notice how every one of those plays out to Keary had the exact same shape?
First play- Keary dummies and tries to get inside Brooks. Instantly that’s made the defence think about compressing the second time round.
Next opportunity same shape again, and this time Keary gets the pass outside to Manu, Joey previously compressing because of the early Keary dummy hangs off that little bit longer.
Etc etc, same shape, multiple options, each time evolving on those options as they have created an element of doubt in the defence about what they can do to stop it.

Have you ever seen a tigers backline play worked that same way?
Post to Jason Taylor that is..

Well the thing is Luke Keary 99% of the time has Tedesco sweeping into the play and that causes half the drama.

Tedesco was already highly effective at the Tigers when he had to do all the work himself, let alone when he had a maestro passer picking and choosing when to give him the ball.

Keary is still an effective player but it would be a totally different thing if he was shaping up with players outside him like Corey Thompson or BJ Leilua.

Defences just don't get nervous trying to hold shape against weak backlines. Daine Laurie may start to change things when he really finds his stride, in a similar way to Papenhuyzen becoming more of a backline decoy weapon once defences got used to having to look out for him. In the early days of Paps he'd go through the middle or just use blistering pace, but now he is a known entity to defensive formations, it gives more breathing space for Munster and Hughes.

Good point, just as I started reading your reply,I realised that the common denominator to our attacking structure under Taylor and the roosters is actually Tedesco. My point was more about how well drilled they are in that they can approach the line at speed every time with the players all in the same positions but choose probably any 1 of a possible 6 options.
But your point about Tedesco is very much valid.

Well, Roosters are well-drilled too. But I think the fundamentals are that defence is all about confidence and vision. If the defence think they have it covered, they tend to present a strong line and they don't over-commit to players. If the defence is in two minds, good attackers can see that and it's a carve up.

People wouldn't give Luke Keary so much space if there wasn't Tedesco or Latrell looming around the back. And I think Roosters are a far weaker side without Latrell, just a step below what they used to be. Joey Manu not in the form he used to have.

I mean, apparently Tigers are hopeless, but three weeks ago I watched them shred the Manly side, and I'll be buggered if Jake Turbo or DCE would have made a lick of difference. Manly were disjointed and we could tell, and our players stepped up the intensity, and Manly barely got the ball back.

But in talking about players in motion, it does do my head in. I still stand by my opinion that Luke Brooks would be far less maligned if he ever played in a good football team, with running options, which unfortunately for him he's barely ever done. You look at blokes with half the talent of Brooks - like The Chad or Blake Green, but find themselves periodically in good sides where their deficiencies don't show so badly.

You look at early Garner, becoming something of a weapon running off Brooks. Where has that gone? Where is Luke Garner running hard lines for his halfback to select. No, you have to go back to 2010/2011, and I hate to do it, but such a different calibre of attacking footballer back then, under Sheens, who loved ball and player movement. Ellis, Dwyer, a young Chris Lawrence, post-rugby Lote, a young Fifita - it's nothing like that in recent years. 2021 maybe, if we get a few good games under our belt, there's some greater attacking potential than we've yet seen.