Taylor- Post Match Interview

[southerntiger]

Attack and defence aren't distinct to each other, they are both related and it all relates back to the ruck. If you're losing the ruck, you're losing the game- the only way to lose the ruck and win the game would be to score length of the field, miraculous, intercept tries that we've come up with.

**Last year and earlier this year, it was all one out hit up. No offload, minimal decoy runners and lack of passes. Result? we lost the ruck.**

JT thought it was important to play simple footy before doing the fancy plays. Fair enough. However, in hindsight I believe he was wrong. We should've played the game that wins in the NRL from the outset. These boys have been playing rugby league for over a decade and are now in the NRL, they need to be playing more than just "simple footy". Sure, playing with numbers with extra passes would tire us out and probably result in mistakes but that's the development process.

**If we continue how we played against the Souths, we'll probably make more mistakes but sometimes I think that's fine. Learn from the mistake, practice the same set at training over and over again until you keep hitting the mark on the chest a few times in a row.**

But as I said, it is in hindsight that I see it. I don't think the 5 hit up, bomb technique helped us develop our team or the players.

Great post.

In hindsight JT's plan that a lot of posters bought into was stupid. The idea that we had to learn or something like that was also stupid. It was losing footy in the short and long term.

If we continue to play positive footy we will make some mistakes but we also give ourselves a much better chance of winning consistently now and in the future.

Yep lets play Steve tactics each week. Completion rate of 50% is how you win games.

No. I don't believe that 50% completion rates are the way to win games. That is the way to lose games and I definitely have never said that. Another way to lose games is to play boring footy - i.e. 5 hit-ups and a bomb or no attacking plays around the ruck or never spreading the ball wide.

I understand it's hard for some posters to grasp that winning footy involves actually trying to win games rather than just hoping that you keep the opposition to a low score and fluke a try or two and jag the win.

You win games by playing positive footy. Let's also be honest. We are a much better team when we attack when we have the ball. There is a time and a place for the 5 hit-ups and then a bomb but it is not going to win you games if that is all you do and it's definitely losing footy over the course of a season or multiple seasons.

When attacking footy sticks its great. It is also low % football and leads to errors. Thats why most teams coached by the better coaches - Bellamy, Bennett etc - look to complete their sets rather than playing "attacking" footy.

Attacking footy hasn't worked for us for many years, why would it work now?

After Sheens the club wanted to toughen up and play % football. Thats what Taylor is trying to do. Whether he is the right coach, probably not, but going back to playing "attacking" football would be a backward step in my view, even if I do enjoy the ride.

 

[pHyR3]

Attack and defence aren't distinct to each other, they are both related and it all relates back to the ruck. If you're losing the ruck, you're losing the game- the only way to lose the ruck and win the game would be to score length of the field, miraculous, intercept tries that we've come up with.

**Last year and earlier this year, it was all one out hit up. No offload, minimal decoy runners and lack of passes. Result? we lost the ruck.**

JT thought it was important to play simple footy before doing the fancy plays. Fair enough. However, in hindsight I believe he was wrong. We should've played the game that wins in the NRL from the outset. These boys have been playing rugby league for over a decade and are now in the NRL, they need to be playing more than just "simple footy". Sure, playing with numbers with extra passes would tire us out and probably result in mistakes but that's the development process.

**If we continue how we played against the Souths, we'll probably make more mistakes but sometimes I think that's fine. Learn from the mistake, practice the same set at training over and over again until you keep hitting the mark on the chest a few times in a row.**

But as I said, it is in hindsight that I see it. I don't think the 5 hit up, bomb technique helped us develop our team or the players.

Great post.

In hindsight JT's plan that a lot of posters bought into was stupid. The idea that we had to learn or something like that was also stupid. It was losing footy in the short and long term.

If we continue to play positive footy we will make some mistakes but we also give ourselves a much better chance of winning consistently now and in the future.

Yep lets play Steve tactics each week. Completion rate of 50% is how you win games.

No. I don't believe that 50% completion rates are the way to win games. That is the way to lose games and I definitely have never said that. Another way to lose games is to play boring footy - i.e. 5 hit-ups and a bomb or no attacking plays around the ruck or never spreading the ball wide.

I understand it's hard for some posters to grasp that winning footy involves actually trying to win games rather than just hoping that you keep the opposition to a low score and fluke a try or two and jag the win.

You win games by playing positive footy. Let's also be honest. We are a much better team when we attack when we have the ball. There is a time and a place for the 5 hit-ups and then a bomb but it is not going to win you games if that is all you do and it's definitely losing footy over the course of a season or multiple seasons.

youre taking it to an extreme to prove a point. we needed to build a foundation to fall back on

starting with flashy footy and finishing with it will not end well. melbourne base their entire strategy on being discplined and structured and theyre conceding 10 pts a game on the back of that. we always knew we could play flashy footy, we didnt and still dont know we can grit out a win. playing boring footy helps instil that.

JT probably went a bit far/mismanaged that, but the general idea of trying to put structures in place that young halves can fall back on was correct

 

[stevetiger]

Great post.

In hindsight JT's plan that a lot of posters bought into was stupid. The idea that we had to learn or something like that was also stupid. It was losing footy in the short and long term.

If we continue to play positive footy we will make some mistakes but we also give ourselves a much better chance of winning consistently now and in the future.

Yep lets play Steve tactics each week. Completion rate of 50% is how you win games.

No. I don't believe that 50% completion rates are the way to win games. That is the way to lose games and I definitely have never said that. Another way to lose games is to play boring footy - i.e. 5 hit-ups and a bomb or no attacking plays around the ruck or never spreading the ball wide.

I understand it's hard for some posters to grasp that winning footy involves actually trying to win games rather than just hoping that you keep the opposition to a low score and fluke a try or two and jag the win.

You win games by playing positive footy. Let's also be honest. We are a much better team when we attack when we have the ball. There is a time and a place for the 5 hit-ups and then a bomb but it is not going to win you games if that is all you do and it's definitely losing footy over the course of a season or multiple seasons.

When attacking footy sticks its great. It is also low % football and leads to errors. Thats why most teams coached by the better coaches - Bellamy, Bennett etc - look to complete their sets rather than playing "attacking" footy.

Attacking footy hasn't worked for us for many years, why would it work now?

After Sheens the club wanted to toughen up and play % football. Thats what Taylor is trying to do. Whether he is the right coach, probably not, but going back to playing "attacking" football would be a backward step in my view, even if I do enjoy the ride.

I'm not trying to be difficult but we won't win games consistently unless we have our attack in order. That doesn't have to mean low percentage play. This is what I think peeps aren't grasping. It's about making the right play. The comment that the better coaches just look to complete their sets rather than playing attacking footy isn't true either. Even the comment that Sheens just had us attacking isn't true. We won in 05 and defended well. The best teams know how to attack. They can also defend but I just think that this is common sense.

Taylor has done some things well and some things really poorly. At this point the poor outweigh the good. If he turns that around or if he shows massive improvement over the course of this year I'm happy to keep him here.

 

[tig_prmz]

youre taking it to an extreme to prove a point. we needed to build a foundation to fall back on

starting with flashy footy and finishing with it will not end well. melbourne base their entire strategy on being discplined and structured and theyre conceding 10 pts a game on the back of that. we always knew we could play flashy footy, we didnt and still dont know we can grit out a win. playing boring footy helps instil that.

JT probably went a bit far/mismanaged that, but the general idea of trying to put structures in place that young halves can fall back on was correct

I'm not saying we shouldn't play structured and disciplined footy. I'm talking about playing it two passes wider off the ruck with players in motion, it's not that hard. It's not going to lead to 50% completion rates.

What does flashy footy mean? If you mean, going sideways to find the winger, kicking on 3rd tackle to score a try etc., that's not what i mean at all.

The halves should've been more involved from the outset. They should've handled the ball at least 3 times a set and run the ball at least once a set. We put all the pressure on the forwards with that game plan. We sent them out alone with 3 people waiting to smash them. It wasn't fair on them.

 

[southerntiger]

This not about defending Taylor. I have stated repeatedly he should go. Its time for a change. I just don't accept we should go back to playing the mickey mouse football that you want to play.

Completing sets, kicking deep, getting repeat sets - this is the core of a competitive team and this is what we haven't done over the last 5 years. I applaud Taylor for trying to make that a priority.

I also recognise that we aren't going to be seriously competitive for a title - although we may play some exciting footy - with 20 year old halves and it is better that we develop these kids to have the consistency and core skills that makes the likes of Thurston a champion, than simply letting them have a free reign. In a better squad, they would have still been playing off the bench - just like Thurston did for his first 3 years - but we don't have that luxury.

 

[southerntiger]

youre taking it to an extreme to prove a point. we needed to build a foundation to fall back on

starting with flashy footy and finishing with it will not end well. melbourne base their entire strategy on being discplined and structured and theyre conceding 10 pts a game on the back of that. we always knew we could play flashy footy, we didnt and still dont know we can grit out a win. playing boring footy helps instil that.

JT probably went a bit far/mismanaged that, but the general idea of trying to put structures in place that young halves can fall back on was correct

I'm not saying we shouldn't play structured and disciplined footy. I'm talking about playing it two passes wider off the ruck with players in motion, it's not that hard. It's not going to lead to 50% completion rates.

You say that but the fact is that it has in the past. The problem also is that with immature footballers, as we have, that play ultimately leads to risk and silly play. A great example is the Titans game earlier in the year. We are killing the Titans, the kids confidences are up and they start pushing passes they shouldn't. We end up getting towelled. Taylor has repeatedly said that this is exactly why we need to play structured. I agree with him.

 

[bp_tiger]

youre taking it to an extreme to prove a point. we needed to build a foundation to fall back on

starting with flashy footy and finishing with it will not end well. melbourne base their entire strategy on being discplined and structured and theyre conceding 10 pts a game on the back of that. we always knew we could play flashy footy, we didnt and still dont know we can grit out a win. playing boring footy helps instil that.

JT probably went a bit far/mismanaged that, but the general idea of trying to put structures in place that young halves can fall back on was correct

I'm not saying we shouldn't play structured and disciplined footy. I'm talking about playing it two passes wider off the ruck with players in motion, it's not that hard. It's not going to lead to 50% completion rates.

You say that but the fact is that it has in the past. The problem also is that with immature footballers, as we have, that play ultimately leads to risk and silly play. A great example is the Titans game earlier in the year. We are killing the Titans, the kids confidences are up and they start pushing passes they shouldn't. We end up getting towelled. Taylor has repeatedly said that this is exactly why we need to play structured. I agree with him.

what a load of crap any good coach knows that once u close up shop and start playing so u dont lose is when u do lose, u got to keep playing football.

 

[southerntiger]

youre taking it to an extreme to prove a point. we needed to build a foundation to fall back on

starting with flashy footy and finishing with it will not end well. melbourne base their entire strategy on being discplined and structured and theyre conceding 10 pts a game on the back of that. we always knew we could play flashy footy, we didnt and still dont know we can grit out a win. playing boring footy helps instil that.

JT probably went a bit far/mismanaged that, but the general idea of trying to put structures in place that young halves can fall back on was correct

I'm not saying we shouldn't play structured and disciplined footy. I'm talking about playing it two passes wider off the ruck with players in motion, it's not that hard. It's not going to lead to 50% completion rates.

You say that but the fact is that it has in the past. The problem also is that with immature footballers, as we have, that play ultimately leads to risk and silly play. A great example is the Titans game earlier in the year. We are killing the Titans, the kids confidences are up and they start pushing passes they shouldn't. We end up getting towelled. Taylor has repeatedly said that this is exactly why we need to play structured. I agree with him.

what a load of crap any good coach knows that once u close up shop and start playing so u dont lose is when u do lose, u got to keep playing football.

Playing structured, % football is not closing up shop.

 

[notarealtiger]

I think what Taylor has been trying to instill in the boys is that when things aren't going your way and passes aren't sticking, you need to revert back to the one-out and bomb structure to minimise the points the opposition can score until you can swing momentum back you way.

With that said, if you regularly have players in motion following the ball runner, you force the opposition to make decisions which would go a long way towards getting the momentum back.

So I'd say Taylor had the right idea but he executed it poorly IMO.

 

[stevetiger]

youre taking it to an extreme to prove a point. we needed to build a foundation to fall back on

starting with flashy footy and finishing with it will not end well. melbourne base their entire strategy on being discplined and structured and theyre conceding 10 pts a game on the back of that. we always knew we could play flashy footy, we didnt and still dont know we can grit out a win. playing boring footy helps instil that.

JT probably went a bit far/mismanaged that, but the general idea of trying to put structures in place that young halves can fall back on was correct

I'm not saying we shouldn't play structured and disciplined footy. I'm talking about playing it two passes wider off the ruck with players in motion, it's not that hard. It's not going to lead to 50% completion rates.

What does flashy footy mean? If you mean, going sideways to find the winger, kicking on 3rd tackle to score a try etc., that's not what i mean at all.

The halves should've been more involved from the outset. They should've handled the ball at least 3 times a set and run the ball at least once a set. We put all the pressure on the forwards with that game plan. We sent them out alone with 3 people waiting to smash them. It wasn't fair on them.

Exactly. We make it so hard for us to compete with dumb game plans. We are going to lose games due to poor execution but I can handle that if we at least go out there and give ourselves a chance at winning games consistently.

 

[tig_prmz]

You say that but the fact is that it has in the past. The problem also is that with immature footballers, as we have, that play ultimately leads to risk and silly play. A great example is the Titans game earlier in the year. We are killing the Titans, the kids confidences are up and they start pushing passes they shouldn't. We end up getting towelled. Taylor has repeatedly said that this is exactly why we need to play structured. I agree with him.

And why were we all over the titains in the first place? I get what you're saying and agree with JT too in regards to playing with structures but you play that style of footy when you're on the front foot and just need to maintain possession in the last 5 minutes. If you play one out in the first 5 minutes of the game, the other team is going to wipe the floor with you.

Anyway, what's done is done. The kids are no kids anymore. Almost all have played over 50 games, they're all here for another year. Let's make it count.