High-scoring wins didn't help us: Taylor

[TYGA]

:crazy :crazy Low Scoring Losses are better :crazy :crazy

 

[Tigermama]

oh shut up Taylor
Just deliver the results you have been hired for

Keep out of the media and focus more on getting the team to win some more games

Lol.. :laughing:

 

[Tigermama]

Get rid of JT the halves and all the under-performers…
Get rid of them all...Off with their heads... :smiling_imp:
Ahhh, i feel better now. :neutral_face:

 

[Eddie]

All this attack v defence is complete garbage.

Players and Taylor are responsible for winning games.

If they score 8 and we score 0 thats a failure for me

If we score 2 and they score 0 thats a triumph

If we score 36 and they score 30 thats a triumph.

If they score 40 and we score 38 thats a failure.

Maybe im an idiot but thats the way i look at it.

Simplistic

Rugby League is a simple game.

 

[happy_tiger]

One thing I would like to see mentioned is how this side and it's coaching staff struggle to get the balance right.

Game 1 = Brilliant attack but poor defence
Game 2 = Brilliant attack but average defence
Game 3 = Poor attack but average defence with good patches
Game 4 = Putrid attack but great defence.

The two main aspects of our game are inversely related and until this evens out we are in trouble. Looking at the pattern this year I'd suggest we will revert to how we played in weeks 1&2 and attack well against the sharks but defend poorly.

I agree and disagree.

Your review of the first rounds is perfect and how we've been for a very long time. It's like the players can only concentrate on one aspect of the game at once - either they click in attack, or in defence.

Problem is, it is PROVEN over several years that attacking well and defending poorly will jag some early games, but you end up getting worn down by the better sides running into the finals and you miss the 8\. Write that up as the Tigers Template, to win early games, get everyone excited, some wobblies mid-season then a gradual downhill slide the backend of the season when the opposition has worked us out and our momentum has faltered.

JT says in order to be a consistent Top 8 side, we need to consistently have games with great defence, even if that kills off the attack a little. Plenty of people say this is wrong, but the point JT is making is he doesn't need to teach this team how to attack well and defend like wet tissues, they already have it in spades.

He's trying to teach them to defend well and keep some semblance of attack, then bring the attack back into focus once the defence is regularly good. This is why he always crows about good defensive games, even if we lose. Some supporters lose their mind that a coach can be so optimistic after a loss, but he's trying to change the culture from one that falls back on attack in tight games, to one that falls back on strong defence in tight games.

We saw it yesterday, when Tigers get rattled by committed defence, the attack goes to pot. We saw it Rds 1-3 that if opposition builds attacking momentum we can leak huge amounts of tries.

I think JT wants us to be the Andre Agassi of rugby league - low mistakes, tight defence, always and consistently difficult to beat. That is what the fans want too, not this up and down side, but a team that always goes within 4-8 points of a win. Agassi started off as such a loose player, long hair and jewellery and girlfriends, mentally fragile. Then he shaved his head, got married, toned down the glamour and worked hard on his way up to #1 based on a gameplan of super low errors. Simple and dedicated, not crushing a winner every shot, but staying in every point and punishing the opponent's errors.

I am definitely not saying JT is the man who can make this happen. I'm saying he has the right ideas, but maybe it's up to someone else to get it to work. Taylor has always been known as a savvy tactician and commendable reader of the game, he used to do it as a media gig, and he has been quite successful as an assistant coach, but maybe he just can't turn that analytical mind into a successful head coach.

I sort of agree with all of this but I don't think Taylor really gets it or at least he doesn't portray that in the media. He has improved this year but articles like this one show that he still can't get it right before he opens his mouth.

The point is that it's not as clear cut as the spin that Taylor keeps putting out there.

He had all last year to change the team and he failed. He can still turn it around this year but I reckon we have a good team if the halves play well and possibly Siro turns into a gun forward. I hate to say it but maybe if those players don't step up Taylor is gonski's. It's really a key part of his job to get these players playing good solid footy and if they aren't up to it putting someone there who can do the job.

I don't know why he doesn't just say "we had some poor individual performances out there amongst good solid defence" and "our attack needs to improve a lot because we won't win games with that effort". If he said that I'd have a lot more confidence in the guy.

I don't think anyone including Sheens ever wanted this team to go for the hail mary play on every play.

Hang on Steve

Last comment you made before this comment you weren't blaming Taylor

:crazy

 

[Telltails]

Maybe it was Parra's fault that we lost.

 

[stevetiger]

Last comment you made before this comment you weren't blaming Taylor

Taylor is the coach and has to take some of the blame. I don't think he is completely to blame unlike last season's debacle. I think he has realized you need to attack. I just think our halves were terrible. Maybe he made some mistakes as well in the team that he selected and how Robbie was played but I think overall he has chosen good teams. I think when it comes to Robbie though JT goes on power trips that aren't in the interest of this club winning games.

In stating all of that it's obvious it was the halves that stuffed us but Taylor talking like he does in the media is crazy. The guys on here supporting him all over the place are also nutters. He has to get results. You can't keep blaming the team or the past or go on and on about defence and structures and how winning games was really bad for us and all this sort of dribble. I ain't buying it and unless we start winning games consistently Taylor will be gone. On the positive I won't have to listen to the dribble on here backing up the dribble that Taylor goes on with.

Here is the kicker - if Taylor had come out and made sensible rational comments then he looks a lot more competent. He puts himself in it time and time again.

 

[happy_tiger]

Last comment you made before this comment you weren't blaming Taylor

Taylor is the coach and has to take some of the blame. I don't think he is completely to blame unlike last season's debacle. I think he has realized you need to attack. I just think our halves were terrible. Maybe he made some mistakes as well in the team that he selected and how Robbie was played but I think overall he has chosen good teams. I think when it comes to Robbie though JT goes on power trips that aren't in the interest of this club winning games.

In stating all of that it's obvious it was the halves that stuffed us but Taylor talking like he does in the media is crazy. The guys on here supporting him all over the place are also nutters. He has to get results. You can't keep blaming the team or the past or go on and on about defence and structures and how winning games was really bad for us and all this sort of dribble. I ain't buying it and unless we start winning games consistently Taylor will be gone. On the positive I won't have to listen to the dribble on here backing up the dribble that Taylor goes on with.

Here is the kicker - if Taylor had come out and made sensible rational comments then he looks a lot more competent. He puts himself in it time and time again.

What Taylor is trying to say , you can play that footy all you like , but when it doesn't come off you need to be able to defend your lack of attack

Steve , do some research for me

What is our lowest winning total in the last three years and then tell me how that ranks in the NRL …

 

[stevetiger]

What Taylor is trying to say , you can play that footy all you like , but when it doesn't come off you need to be able to defend your lack of attack

Thanks for that. How is that at all relevant to the loss against Parra ? We defended pretty well and lost the game. Is that a fair statement ? Assuming that it is a fair statement doesn't that show you how out of touch Taylor is ? His comments make no sense in the context of the loss against Parra.

Why can he (and you) not see the clear issue in that game ?

 

[supercoach]

I tend to agree a little with what Taylor said. I just get the feeling after the first two games and the first ten minutes of the third game, the boys thought they could do a very quick shift of the ball to the right and would come up trumps nine times out of ten. Teams watch videos after videos of their opponents and it doesn't take long for the other teams to work out a plan to stop these raids. At present there is no plan B, nothing much is happening around the ruck or on the edges, no clever inside balls, no set plays off the scrums and very little use of the blind side, it seems pretty one dimensional.

I do take heart with our defensive effort last week but it also has to be remembered that Parra were as bad as us with the ball in hand or should I say dropped balls so they really did not put a great deal of pressure on our defence.

Once again early days, but all the signs tell me, we are on the improve but still a long long way off being that top four team we all dream of.

 

[stevetiger]

I still think we can make the 8 and maybe do better but we need to get the halves playing consistent footy and we need to do a lot more with the ball in hand. It's not always going to be great footy ala the first 2 rounds but we need to have some attack especially in tighter games. Robbie's touches at times were great - the kick to the in-goal and the massive kick on the 3rd tackle. The thing is our halves need to do that and more.

The defence was good against Parra but it's pointless unless you can score tries.

 

[cktiger]

Unforced errors and bad choices by our halves cost us last week - and the week before.
I'm pretty sure (well, I hope) they are learning pretty quickly that the spectacular plays don't come off every time.
In regards to high scoring wins not helping us, I thought it was pretty good in relation to our for and against.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

those high scoring games helped us in that we won points in spite of having shocking defence for portions of the game. The wake up call for better defence was there already, somehow there was a let down in the pre-season training or was it because Golden Boy Farah was not there for the plughole up the middle.

 

[happy_tiger]

What Taylor is trying to say , you can play that footy all you like , but when it doesn't come off you need to be able to defend your lack of attack

Thanks for that. How is that at all relevant to the loss against Parra ? We defended pretty well and lost the game. Is that a fair statement ? Assuming that it is a fair statement doesn't that show you how out of touch Taylor is ? His comments make no sense in the context of the loss against Parra.

Why can he (and you) not see the clear issue in that game ?

Struggling to research my question Steve ??

Balance Balance Balance is what our coach is searching for , having our best and worst performances as close as they can be to the same

 

[jirskyr]

When have I ever said go throw the ball around, do whatever you like, kick on the 3rd play???

All I have EVR said is play a style of football that suits the rosters of players you have.

We don't have a Giant pack that can steamroll sides.

W dont have a team of tall wingers that you can bomb too every set.

Aim to play balanced football like the Broncos and Cowboys, but adjust to the roster at your disposal.

5 hits up and a Bomb was a proven failure last year resulting in 15th spot.

This year maybe the attack needs to be reigned in at certain times. The last 2 completions rates suggest they have taken it too far or just have not executed it well resulting in losses.

I have never wanted defence marginalised. Of course it is very important.

The quicker we find the balance between using our players flair, grinding defence, building pressure etc the better we will be.

I agree with most of what you've said. What we need is the balance and the level-headedness to know when to play safe footy and when to really chance our hand.

And absolutely - flamboyant attack is acceptable where supported by a high completion rate (and field position).

E.g. these "deft" kicks they seem fond of. Moses hit Nofo for a try against Manly, he also hit him again against Parra. I think Moses has decent control over his short kicks on the run. Brooks tried the same for Rankin and executed badly, though I'm not against taking the chance at that particular time in the match. He also did a dodgy chip against Manly which turned out well, but it was a low-percentage play. But over time, I am expecting these kick options to work out < 50% because Broses just aren't consistent enough yet. In which case you then only try the deft kicks when in good attacking position, or when you have a good percentage of the field position and possession. Even with a good lead it's a risk to hand the ball back and give the opposition a chance to come back into the match.

Curious to know what style of footy you feel does suit our roster? We apparently tried to reign in the attack last year and it didn't work out great. This year we've attacked fairly aggressively and it's also not working out overly well.

I disagree though about the size of our pack, I think they can bulldoze opponents if the handling is good. I think 4 rounds already shows us that quick PTB and hitups from Woods-Grant-Sue-Aloiai-Lawrence are extremely effective in engaging the defensive line.

For me it all boils down to speed of the ruck and willingness to run hard at holes all game, particularly with reduced interchange where every side is clearly struggling between 50-70 minutes. We had 2 rounds of really good forwards platform, then 2 games of ok platform that declined alarmingly between 40-70 minutes when fatigue seemed to be the factor. I would cop the Titans one because of the 5-day turn-around, but weirdly the platform became strong again between 70-80 minutes. This tells me it's less about fatigue and more about the quality of the substitutions (both who is coming on and when).

 

[Chadman_s_Ghost]

Just putting this out there..

2003, Tigers hired Tim Sheens. He had a 29% winning record in 2003\. 7 wins. In 2004, 10 wins & a 41% winning record. Then in 2005, won a premiership.

JT in 2015 had 10 wins & a 38% win record. He's 50% this season so far.

I'm not suggesting JT is ahead of Sheens, or better than Sheens, but I am saying it didn't take 5 minutes for Sheens to turn the Tigers into a Grand Final team.

Seriously, the common theory before the season started was that this roster wasn't strong enough to make the finals. Now you want to hang JT because he's only 50%.

When is it not actually JT doing a bad job? Only when he gets us to a Grand Final?

This club is in progression. Young players developing, new faces finding their place.

It won't be fixed next round either.

But at least they are committed. They held the potentially best team in the NRL to 8 points, all game.

I'm glad JT praised the Defence. It's not like he came out saying our attack is exactly where it needs to be, did he?

 

[innsaneink]

Good point Chad.
There more to all this JT hate…. It's personal for some, some cannot get past him and Farah.... Wouldn't be surprised theres a magpie element to it also.
It's just waaay too overboard and illogical

 

[Chadman_s_Ghost]

Illogical is probably the way I'd describe it too.

There are just some things said about him that leave me staring at the screen wondering if people ACTUALLY believe what they are typing.

I mean, really, someone questioned if JT understands that to win we need more points than the opposition? Really? You need to point that out?

 

[TrueTiger]

Illogical is probably the way I'd describe it too.

There are just some things said about him that leave me staring at the screen wondering if people ACTUALLY believe what they are typing.

I mean, really, someone questioned if JT understands that to win we need more points than the opposition? Really? You need to point that out?

Well mate I have said all along,if the club hires a coach he should be given every possible chance of doing that job unhindered….Potter was well and truly hindered,JT has had a lot more given to him and he still has been suffering from inadequate salary cap issues...JT is trying to get a completely new culture within this club hence his strong defense structures referred to as Taylorball...which many crucified,but once again he is hired to do his job,if he wants to teach the young inexperienced ones how to defend in NRL,who are we to whinge and whine because it was boring as fans,we aren't playing the game,they are and must learn...attacking evey game without having a strong defense platform will lose you more games than wins...many times I have said attack and defense go hand in hand to win games,get both right during a game and you will score more points than the opposition......unfortunately some on here only want to see the negatives of the coaches methods,they forget that this group is young and have much still to learn,especially about execution,ball control and percentage play....I bet most who critise JTs methods wouldn't have a better record if they were in his shoes,however let the negative input continue....

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

The 6 tackle rule is having a massive influence on how the game is played, too much in my opinion. Let the attacking team hang onto the ball a bit longer at least when from their own quarter line, maybe make it 8 tackles and ten from their own goal line. At the moment it is half AFL and not enough Rugby Union.