mike
Well-known member
Low scoring losses don't help us either.
High-scoring wins didn't help us: Taylor
- Thread starter Newtown
- Start date
@hobbo2803 said:
He can teach them all and everything he knows or the manuals recommend ,however if they haven't the nous on how to execute properly,then you can't really blame him,they are out there on big money to get the results,yesterdays performance from NRL halves was very lacklustre and very uninspiring considering they told JT how they want to play the game…and that's aside from poor passes,poor ball control and panicked options with very little pressure on the opposition on the last tackle...
Love_the_WestsTigers
Well-known member
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
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
G
Guest
Guest
@Geo. said:
Very well surmised Geo. If our completion rate was up around 80% instead of 65% we would have won yesterday. The effort was definitely there. Taylor now has to get the squad ready for an in-form Sharks side who will take some beating.
@Eddie said:
Eddie I'm saying as I said in the other thread,I have no problem giving the young ones a go,however they have both been in the NRL for a couple of seasons now and demanded that JT let them off the leash and play their own football,they should have had more control of the game yesterday and shown more in their attack..
stevetiger
New member
@Eddie said:
It's not really that complicated is it. I'd add that an idiot is someone who tries to argue that there is something that you aren't getting. I feel like Braith Anasta can add some value here with his point that you need to score more points than the opposition. I mean it's pretty obvious but obviously some people need to have this explained to them.
stevetiger
New member
@TrueTiger said:
I tell you why you kill me. Taylor is never to blame for anything. It's always part of the longer term plan and giving the players structure and blah blah blah. How about you tell us what Taylor's role is. Is it to win football games because that is my expectation.
Yes the halves were absolutely terrible. I blame them for that loss.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@stryker said:
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.
tigermac88
New member
@stevetiger said:
No Steve you are the one who needs it explained to you… Our defense was excellent yesterday it was our execution that let us down, inability to build pressure from repeat sets, inability to hold onto the ball, throwing passes that just weren't on... How is it Taylor's fault that the players didn't execute? How many dropped balls or bad passes did Taylor throw yesterday??
stevetiger
New member
@tigermac88 said:
I'm not blaming Taylor for the loss. Go and read who I think is to blame. It is pretty clear cut.
In stating that it's also pretty clear that Taylor needs to start getting the team to realise that they need to score more points than they let in. He is the coach and it's his job to get us to win games. If we don't he will be sacked and rightfully so.
How is it Taylor's fault. He is the coach and he needs to take some of the blame especially for some of the poor coaching decisions that were predominantly down to the team selected and specifically the use of the bench. He then backs it up with the delusional comments regarding how winning games was somehow a negative.
stevetiger
New member
@jirskyr said:
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.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@tigermac88 said:
I reckon people like Eddie and steve arguing "all you need to do is score more than them" is far too simplistic.
It's like when you are a kid and you show your dad your sore elbow and say "it hurts when I do this". So he says "well don't do that".
HOW do you score more than the opposition on a consistent basis? How is it done? Don't say score tries and stop theirs, that is a non-constructive response. That is the fast-food response, the styrofoam response to watching rugby league.
I do not think that Broncos and Cowboys are the form teams of the comp for two years because they throw the football around like show-ponies. No, they have very strong defences, every player knows his role, and they wait for the opportunity to hurt their opposition. It is topped off by having very good players who wait for the right moment to make that key play, guys like Milford who takes beautiful runs, or Thurston who kicks to in-goal corners.
Imagine if yesterday against Parra, we keep that composed defence, but instead the attack slowly builds pressure, kicks to the corners, well-placed bombs, completed sets. Then when the match is super tight, rather than botching the attack and letting Parra off the hook AGAIN, in one clutch moments one of the Tigers spine does something wonderful to change the game.
Rarely happens. Rarely do we come home over the top of another side with brilliant late-game footy - we either score a bunch and hold them out, or fall just short. Even in 2010-11, we mostly managed to lose the close and important games, ones like Dragons Prelim Final 2010, Roosters Semi 2010, Warriors Semi 2011\. Even when we beat Raiders in 2010, we held them out and dodged a late penalty miss.
tigermac88
New member
@jirskyr said:
That's the point I've been trying to get across in my earlier posts but you seem to put it better than me.. Thanks!
We need to build pressure to grind out a win in a defensive game like yesterday's instead of going for the Hail Mary and releasing the pressure repeat sets or continually turning the opposition around is far better than trying to score off every set.. Wear the opposition down with 2 or 3 repeat sets and they will eventually open up
@jirskyr said:
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.
innsaneink
Well-known member
@Eddie said:
Simplistic
Benjirific
New member
I believe some of this may come down to Taylor's inferiority complex in regard to quality assistants around him because he feels they're a threat.
The reason we were such a good team who should have won a comp in 2010/11 was that we were a strong defensive team who could blow teams away with our attack - in those years Sheens had Folkes looking after defence while he & Royce looked after attack. Coincidence? I think not.
If Taylor had two strong assistants with him (like Paul Green did last year in John Cartwright & David Furner) and dropped the chip on his shoulder about it, he could focus on the overall picture & I think we'd be a better team.
The reason we were such a good team who should have won a comp in 2010/11 was that we were a strong defensive team who could blow teams away with our attack - in those years Sheens had Folkes looking after defence while he & Royce looked after attack. Coincidence? I think not.
If Taylor had two strong assistants with him (like Paul Green did last year in John Cartwright & David Furner) and dropped the chip on his shoulder about it, he could focus on the overall picture & I think we'd be a better team.
