So has anybody asked Pat why? No? I did'nt think so. Another rumour given credence by the gullible Taylor haters. Ho Hum.
I'd love to share your optimism about JT, but I can't think of a single reason why Pat would suddenly decide it's not worth it any more. I don't imagine he was forced to do it under Potter either.
Before too many more people go jumping down JT's throat, also give some consideration to the fact that he might be right about the tactic?
Fans will remember Richards' awesome kicks and the few times we got the ball back. But do they also track the stats for the number of times we don't get ball back, or how often the field position leads to tries, or kicks out on full? It is entirely plausible that the stats on the towering kickoffs are quite damning, we might be giving away a lot of field position and resulting tries. If JT is anything, he is very stats-driven, you can hear him spouting these, off the top of his head, during interviews.
The real question I have is, if spiral kickoffs are statistically not a good return, why are the set-end torp bombs a tactic we employ so consistently? I can understand the concept behind what the bomb is trying to achieve, to allow a contest and prevent the opposition from getting a quick play the ball from a strong carry. But surely the same principle applies to kick-offs?
