LIVE GAME Trial 2 vs. Dragons

[Furious1]

I didn't get to watch the game live (fortunately) and have stayed away from here so that my view of the game wouldn't be tainted by group think. The performance was poor; Api and Benji were on the money about being out enthused; however, the coaching staff need to take just as hard a look in the mirror as the players.

It was not a simple as they ran and tackled harder than us. They had a game plan that pulled us apart; our "new" simplified system appears to be five hitups and get to the kick. The way Saints were going to play the game was predictable and us playing down the middle corridor played into their hands - we needed to play wider and run them off their feet. Instead, we dished up the same tripe set after set - no good having a great completion rate if you don't ask any questions of the defence.

The glaring deficiencies, apart from attitude:

• Seyfath is not a 13 - he tries hard but simply doesn't have the ball playing skills required for the position.
• Staines has not shown anything that warrants a start in first grade - outside of a better centre that can get him into gaps he could be OK but we don't have that luxury. Lobb, while also not setting the world on fire, at least provides a good kick target. This aspect of his game is probably worth exploiting as we have s a couple of reasonable kickers.
• Neither Sezer or Sullivan took charge of the game management. I'm not sure what the game plan was going into the game - but I can bet it wasn't five hitups and a kick. Galvin, with next to no experience, played more direct and offered a couple of opportunities.
• The number of ineffective tackles made; and this has a direct link to our poor attitude towards the game. Saints came with a point to prove; we looked like we turned up for an opposed training session.

There weren't many positives aside from Galvin showing that, although not ready developmentally, he has the skill set and attitude required to play first grade. The better aspects of our generally poor effort related to our very low error rate with the ball in hand and our short kicking game produced a number of repeat sets. Certainly nothing to crow about.

No need to panic yet, but based on our last performance we are rightly favourites for the spoon. I still think we are capable of climbing the ladder to about 12th; however, we very much need a change in attitude.

I'm going to the opener in Canberra; based on our last game I don't have high expectations.

Nice summary.
I'm a trial is a trial believer, but Im not going to lie, that performance was so insipid there is a bit of panic on my end.
Beaten to the punch from the 1st minute to the 80th. My only hope was that maybe we were still being flogged in fitness due to our first game being 3 weeks away which may have resulted in a fatigued performance.

Unfortunately there has been nothing to suggest that is the case. A mixed response from Captain and coach after the game. Api didn't seemed to fussed, Benji look deeply concerned.
One thing is for sure, when you show the rest of the NRL how soft you can be, then expect every team to come at you aggressively for the rest of the year.

 

[Vicious]

Who plays 13 and how it is played is a big issue.
I like Seyfarth as a player, but he simply did not take his opportunity. Not sure if he was instructed to play more like a 3rd prop than a link man as I’ve seen him play the link man role very effectively in NSW Cup last season. Either way he’s a no frills type of player, so needs to ensure his defence is faultless if/when playing NRL.
Does Benji give him another chance and maybe encourage him to play the link man role much more often, or do we revert back to our 13 as purely a 3rd prop and just let Pole rip and tear from the start ? If we do select our 13 as purely a 3rd prop, do we then pick and choose certain parts of the game to have a much more attack minded 13 to come into the game ?
It’s clear our halves need help and we do not have a playmaking 1, so we need a more attack minded 13 maybe not necessarily from the start, but certainly at some stages throughout the game.
My theory is we would be doing Galvin an injustice by playing him for 80 minutes each week while still so young, however throwing him into the game at certain stages, potentially as a roving 13 who can cover multiple other positions should injuries occur, should ease him in nicely.
That being said he’s probably not an option at filling in for Api at dummy half, so we would also need a back up dummy half, meaning we only have 2 big forwards on the bench.
I think that’s initially our best option.

 

[Tucker]

So what are you judging him on, his time as a winger or centre?

His time as a winger and centre were awful, no doubt. He wasn’t great in either position in most metrics.
As a second rower, he is ineffective at best.
Look at his stats for Saturday:

1. 4 runs for 19 meters gained
2. 3 post contact meters
3. 18 tackles @ 86%
4. 1 offload
5. 1 tackle break
6. 1 error

Not a performance I’d be crowing about.

 

[Buttface]

Watch it again without the bias. He's a good second rower.

I did he was rubbish.

 

[Vicious]

His time as a winger and centre were awful, no doubt. He wasn’t great in either position in most metrics.
As a second rower, he is ineffective at best.
Look at his stats for Saturday:

1. 4 runs for 19 meters gained
2. 3 post contact meters
3. 18 tackles @ 86%
4. 1 offload
5. 1 tackle break
6. 1 error

Not a performance I’d be crowing about.

On face value that is terrible.
My impression while watching the game was he looked to cause the opposing defence a few headaches when did get decent ball.
He didn’t seem like he was on the field for very long and it didn’t appear our halves/playmakers used him very effectively while he was on the field.
He likely won’t be in our starting team for round 2 due to Batenan’s return, but looking at the big picture we need someone on the bench who can cover the forwards and backs, so he is a likely option for that role, unless we opt for what I believe will be a good option in having Galvin on our bench to come and play short stints at 13 and be able to also cover multiple other positions.
The Galvin option would mean we are one big man down in our bench rotation, but gives us much better attacking options.

 

[Buttface]

He is not.

I think we are in total agreement on this matter. Flippers must go asap and anyone thinking he’s good has spent too much time filling the mower.

 

[hank37w]

I'm going to the opener in Canberra; based on our last game I don't have high expectations.

If it's any consolation, at least you don't have that far to travel.

 

[Jolls]

Who plays 13 and how it is played is a big issue.
I like Seyfarth as a player, but he simply did not take his opportunity. Not sure if he was instructed to play more like a 3rd prop than a link man as I’ve seen him play the link man role very effectively in NSW Cup last season. Either way he’s a no frills type of player, so needs to ensure his defence is faultless if/when playing NRL.
Does Benji give him another chance and maybe encourage him to play the link man role much more often, or do we revert back to our 13 as purely a 3rd prop and just let Pole rip and tear from the start ? If we do select our 13 as purely a 3rd prop, do we then pick and choose certain parts of the game to have a much more attack minded 13 to come into the game ?
It’s clear our halves need help and we do not have a playmaking 1, so we need a more attack minded 13 maybe not necessarily from the start, but certainly at some stages throughout the game.
My theory is we would be doing Galvin an injustice by playing him for 80 minutes each week while still so young, however throwing him into the game at certain stages, potentially as a roving 13 who can cover multiple other positions should injuries occur, should ease him in nicely.
That being said he’s probably not an option at filling in for Api at dummy half, so would also need a back uk dummy half, meaning we only have 2 big forwards on the bench.
I think that’s initially our best option.

If Benji is instructing Seyfarth to play like a prop we are in bigger trouble than the insipid performance on the weekend showed.

I took it from Benji's interview that what was dished up was not what the coaching staff prepared.

I'm sure Seyfarth puts in at training and you can see by his effort on the field that he is giving it his all, but at NRL level he is running hard but does not have the size and strength to play after the line. I've seen young A Reserve forward with no step play exactly the same way as Seyfarth and wonder why they can't get to A Gade. What is Seyfarth doing in the NRL if he hasn't masterd the basics?

At this level he should be capable of executing X and Ys to create gaps for breakfast. Seyfarth using that style of play could be useful. He has to commit the defence and play late if we are going to persist with him - that means he must have a support player to pull though the gap - and I'm not seeing it - where is Bula/Staines the Ferrrari?

I'm not sold on Galvin at 13, yet. Developmentally, I think it would be bad for him this early in his career. I would prefer him to have some time in Cup to get used to the grind and bring him on more slowly. Pole, Matamua, Faagutu and possibly Simpkin probably have the ball playing skill set to be successful at 13. Shame we didn't get to see much of them in that position duringthe trials/

 

[colinbh]

New management, new coaching setup, new halves & new combos… all pre season the forum pleaded patience & are throwing it out after 2 trial games. Patience is required lads change isn’t happening overnight.

Agree
Two TRIAL games of which we won one and lost one half in the other. From these trials I came to the following conclusions ( my opinion only ) ÷ our backline needs big changes. Everyone can see that. Who and where are the questions. I believe that Toa, Staines and Topou should be given a rest. Replacements? Not sure. Naden and Lobb probably, the young guy from Qld a strong candidate. Finau ? The young bloke who filled in at fullback on one wing ( seems to have plenty of speed but very young .

Seyfarth Kepoa and even Paps should come under the microscope.

Let's give our coaching staff some leeway. Say for six months or so.

 

[jrtiger]

If Benji is instructing Seyfarth to play like a prop we are in bigger trouble than the insipid performance on the weekend showed.

I took it from Benji's interview that what was dished up was not what the coaching staff prepared.

I'm sure Seyfarth puts in at training and you can see by his effort on the field that he is giving it his all, but at NRL level he is running hard but does not have the size and strength to play after the line. I've seen young A Reserve forward with no step play exactly the same way as Seyfarth and wonder why they can't get to A Gade. What is Seyfarth doing in the NRL if he hasn't masterd the basics?

At this level he should be capable of executing X and Ys to create gaps for breakfast. Seyfarth using that style of play could be useful. He has to commit the defence and play late if we are going to persist with him - that means he must have a support player to pull though the gap - and I'm not seeing it - where is Bula/Staines the Ferrrari?

I'm not sold on Galvin at 13, yet. Developmentally, I think it would be bad for him this early in his career. I would prefer him to have some time in Cup to get used to the grind and bring him on more slowly. Pole, Matamua, Faagutu and possibly Simpkin probably have the ball playing skill set to be successful at 13. Shame we didn't get to see much of them in that position duringthe trials/

the thing that irked me with Seyfarth (besides his defence) was the fact that we would have shape set out to the left say 40 out and he would throw a worthless dummy over his shoulder and tuck the ball under his arm when he was metres away from the ad line.

I'm all for tucking it under and carting it up when it suits, but his timing is way out for an NRL-calibre 13. I'm hoping he can fix it, but he needs to square up, turn out late and cop the whack when passing the ball to hold up defenders and create room for his outside men, as opposed to some stupid dummy that I usually see at Over 50s Touch. nothing he did on Saturday night convinced me that he is going to be able to do that.

 

[Jolls]

he needs to square up, turn out late and cop the whack when passing the ball to hold up defenders and create room for his outside men

Much better than I put it - on the $. He isn't capable of playing after the line and if he did play as you described the dummy may even be useful!

 

[jrtiger]

Agree
Two TRIAL games of which we won one and lost one half in the other. From these trials I came to the following conclusions ( my opinion only ) ÷ our backline needs big changes. Everyone can see that. Who and where are the questions. I believe that Toa, Staines and Topou should be given a rest. Replacements? Not sure. Naden and Lobb probably, the young guy from Qld a strong candidate. Finau ? The young bloke who filled in at fullback on one wing ( seems to have plenty of speed but very young .

Seyfarth Kepoa and even Paps should come under the microscope.

Let's give our coaching staff some leeway. Say for six months or so.

super disappointing that Faataape was ruled out due to the head injury because he may well have played himself into a starting jersey for Round 2, same with Naden.

To'a's defence on a bigger man was hopeless. his legs tackles might've prevented him from getting bumped off, but Suli and Su'a killed us down that edge once they realised that was how he was going to approach it.

Lobb outplayed Staines on the right again, while Tupou I thought improved markedly.

personally I think Marshall will give the starting 13 a chance to redeem themselves, and for that reason I don't see any changes apart from Bateman coming in. we can all make the argument that we should make changes, but again I do think he'll offer them the opportunity to correct their collective mistake in attitude in Round 2.

 

[Kelce68]

Pole is the only realistic option we have at 13...
Bateman or Papali'i could do a job there,
But we have zero NRL back rowers outside them

(Please spare me any AJ Kepaoa Dellusion)

I think that the weekend showed that Pole is the only option there.

Seyfarth, whilst he tries hard, is far too ineffective on both sides of the ball when the intensity is dialled up. He just can't go with them. Particularly around the ruck and in the wrestle, he was awful. He got tangled up and caught out of position at marker at least 3 times in the opening stint, simply from the Dragons players showing some extra impetus and fight in the play the ball. Two of these instances led to tries.

Pole, whilst limited in playmaking ability, can firmly hold that middle and dictate terms a little better in defence, lending mainly to his body size. Certainly can bend the line a little more in attack too. Don't know whether he has the lateral cover of Red, but still.

We're in a pickle at lock. But I agree, Pole is the only, real option.

If Benji is the genuine coach that he says, the game plan should be formed around 3 prop middles with Pole, as opposed to trying to craft a ball-playing 13 out of a fringe first grader who tries his best, but is largely ineffective.

 

[Vicious]

I think that the weekend showed that Pole is the only option there.

Seyfarth, whilst he tries hard, is far too ineffective on both sides of the ball when the intensity is dialled up. He just can't go with them. Particularly around the ruck and in the wrestle, he was awful. He got tangled up and caught out of position at marker at least 3 times in the opening stint, simply from the Dragons players showing some extra impetus and fight in the play the ball. Two of these instances led to tries.

Pole, whilst limited in playmaking ability, can firmly hold that middle and dictate terms a little better in defence, lending mainly to his body size. Certainly can bend the line a little more in attack too. Don't know whether he has the lateral cover of Red, but still.

We're in a pickle at lock. But I agree, Pole is the only, real option.

If Benji is the genuine coach that he says, the game plan should be formed around 3 prop middles with Pole, as opposed to trying to craft a ball-playing 13 out of a fringe first grader who tries his best, but is largely ineffective.

The issue is we will simply continue to have a woeful attack when selecting a team consisting of a 13 and 1 that both have no idea how to assist with the playmaking.

 

[Kelce68]

I didn't get to watch the game live (fortunately) and have stayed away from here so that my view of the game wouldn't be tainted by group think. The performance was poor; Api and Benji were on the money about being out enthused; however, the coaching staff need to take just as hard a look in the mirror as the players.

It was not a simple as they ran and tackled harder than us. They had a game plan that pulled us apart; our "new" simplified system appears to be five hitups and get to the kick. The way Saints were going to play the game was predictable and us playing down the middle corridor played into their hands - we needed to play wider and run them off their feet. Instead, we dished up the same tripe set after set - no good having a great completion rate if you don't ask any questions of the defence.

The glaring deficiencies, apart from attitude:

• Seyfath is not a 13 - he tries hard but simply doesn't have the ball playing skills required for the position.
• Staines has not shown anything that warrants a start in first grade - outside of a better centre that can get him into gaps he could be OK but we don't have that luxury. Lobb, while also not setting the world on fire, at least provides a good kick target. This aspect of his game is probably worth exploiting as we have s a couple of reasonable kickers.
• Neither Sezer or Sullivan took charge of the game management. I'm not sure what the game plan was going into the game - but I can bet it wasn't five hitups and a kick. Galvin, with next to no experience, played more direct and offered a couple of opportunities.
• The number of ineffective tackles made; and this has a direct link to our poor attitude towards the game. Saints came with a point to prove; we looked like we turned up for an opposed training session.

There weren't many positives aside from Galvin showing that, although not ready developmentally, he has the skill set and attitude required to play first grade. The better aspects of our generally poor effort related to our very low error rate with the ball in hand and our short kicking game produced a number of repeat sets. Certainly nothing to crow about.

No need to panic yet, but based on our last performance we are rightly favourites for the spoon. I still think we are capable of climbing the ladder to about 12th; however, we very much need a change in attitude.

I'm going to the opener in Canberra; based on our last game I don't have high expectations.

Good little breakdown, mate.

As I highlighted above, I think the bolded statement says a lot about Saturday. I just get the feeling we played with one hand in our pocket on the weekend. It looked that way from early on. I'm not sure why, or if we deliberately over-simplified the game or if we continued to experiment with a few things, rather than a doubled-down, locked in performance, but that's the feeling I got.

Several tries were very soft and came off next to no ruck control, which, to me, looked like a combination of not focussing on the ruck in this particular trial and poor refereeing (off the mark ptb's and players locking defenders in).

I also think that the Dragons have shone a light on their very simplistic game plan, essentially being up tempo football and early, quality ball to their big men out wide for force over finesse as they attempt to steamroll unsuspecting teams on the edges. That type of game plan can be very effective in a trial where teams are primarily focussed on their own structures and combinations without too much emphasis on neutralising to opposition's style of play.

But it also, in the season proper, can be relatively easily stifled through how you load up your own edges defensively. For example, a little more wrestle in the ruck and more jamming on the right, like the left, would've left Suli with a lot less time, with very little risk of being stripped out wide for numbers or pace.

 

[Kelce68]

The issue is we simply continue to have an extremely poor attack when selecting a team consisting of a 13 and 1 that both have no idea how to assist with the playmaking.

I don't agree with that assessment of Bula.

But if we don't have a 13 in the squad that can play that role, then you simply don't play that style, in my opinion. Personally, I think the playmaking 13 role is overused and overrated in terms of it's importance and I think there are several different styles of lock play that work, we just need to decide which style we have the best personnel for and work to that, rather than trying to manufacture one.

The major problem I see with the attack, particularly on backline swings (where a ball playing lock would be helpful) is the lack of running threat from the playmakers in the line and their subsequent inability or unwillingness to straighten the attack. If you have Sezer to Bud to Bula to Olam, and each presents a very real running threat to the opposition and each straightens the attack, they will not only give the outside men more space, but more time also as each defender gets held up a microsecond or longer at the risk of any one of those link men slicing through.

Of all people, it was Galvin, who was in school 3 months ago, who looked the most likely with his straightening of the attack and willingness to run himself, play short and play long out the back.

No running threats, no straightening, no backline success.

 

[Needaname]

Who plays 13 and how it is played is a big issue.
I like Seyfarth as a player, but he simply did not take his opportunity. Not sure if he was instructed to play more like a 3rd prop than a link man as I’ve seen him play the link man role very effectively in NSW Cup last season. Either way he’s a no frills type of player, so needs to ensure his defence is faultless if/when playing NRL.
Does Benji give him another chance and maybe encourage him to play the link man role much more often, or do we revert back to our 13 as purely a 3rd prop and just let Pole rip and tear from the start ? If we do select our 13 as purely a 3rd prop, do we then pick and choose certain parts of the game to have a much more attack minded 13 to come into the game ?
It’s clear our halves need help and we do not have a playmaking 1, so we need a more attack minded 13 maybe not necessarily from the start, but certainly at some stages throughout the game.
My theory is we would be doing Galvin an injustice by playing him for 80 minutes each week while still so young, however throwing him into the game at certain stages, potentially as a roving 13 who can cover multiple other positions should injuries occur, should ease him in nicely.
That being said he’s probably not an option at filling in for Api at dummy half, so we would also need a back up dummy half, meaning we only have 2 big forwards on the bench.
I think that’s initially our best option.

Sullivan or Fainu could be your man there if you need.
I don’t think Seyfarth makes our best 17 at this stage. Put him in NSW cup and let him build his engine at lock if that is the plan.

 

[weststigers]

His time as a winger and centre were awful, no doubt. He wasn’t great in either position in most metrics.
As a second rower, he is ineffective at best.
Look at his stats for Saturday:

1. 4 runs for 19 meters gained
2. 3 post contact meters
3. 18 tackles @ 86%
4. 1 offload
5. 1 tackle break
6. 1 error

Not a performance I’d be crowing about.

Him and Simpkin to start for Western Suburbs. They've earned it.

 

[LeichhardtTiger]

What happened over the past 2 weeks?

Well, we went to NZ for a week to acclimatise & bond over some harrowing shotover swerves. Then it's time to play a physical side in The Warriors. It was a trial and we played accordingly - good bits and bad bits. But we won.

Then we returned to Sydney on Monday - time to wind down. Recovery time.

Tuesday - Time to visit the Pascoe Barber cos, guess what - It's Season Launch time tonight.
Oh, and last-minute tailoring of the corporate gray blazer and then a late night of schmoozing the faithful.

Wednesday, another Recovery Day - after all, it wouldn't be fair for all those boys who live in The McArthur region to have had to go home on Tuesday night.

Thursday and Friday spent watching videos of the Shotover highlights to re-engage the bonds that were formed during those harrowing swerves (it did look to pay off when Bula scored)

Saturday - on the bus to Mudgee.

Saturday night - no intensity - apparently, they left it all onboard the shotover boat and the Season Launch smoke and mirrors function.

All jokes aside - it was a very short & distracting turnaround time for the 2nd Trial against a very physical Dragons unit.

I think we need to move camp to Seiffert Oval asap in order to prep for Round 2. Then a Bonding Session at the Fyshwick firecracker factory might be in order!

 

[Vicious]

I don't agree with that assessment of Bula.

But if we don't have a 13 in the squad that can play that role, then you simply don't play that style, in my opinion. Personally, I think the playmaking 13 role is overused and overrated in terms of it's importance and I think there are several different styles of lock play that work, we just need to decide which style we have the best personnel for and work to that, rather than trying to manufacture one.

The major problem I see with the attack, particularly on backline swings (where a ball playing lock would be helpful) is the lack of running threat from the playmakers in the line and their subsequent inability or unwillingness to straighten the attack. If you have Sezer to Bud to Bula to Olam, and each presents a very real running threat to the opposition and each straightens the attack, they will not only give the outside men more space, but more time also as each defender gets held up a microsecond or longer at the risk of any one of those link men slicing through.

Of all people, it was Galvin, who was in school 3 months ago, who looked the most likely with his straightening of the attack and willingness to run himself, play short and play long out the back.

No running threats, no straightening, no backline success.

You don’t agree that Bula has no playmaking ability ? If he does it would be nice to see it. Not touching the ball for the first 15 minutes when we had plenty of ball attacking our opponents line is not good enough.
I agree that we ideally need our halves to be a running threat similar to how Melbourne Storm play with two predominantly running halves in Hughes and Munster. They also lack a ball playing 13, but Papenhuyzen has developed into a decent 3rd playmaking and general play kicking option when required.
If we want our halves to be genuine running threats, we would not be selecting Sezer that’s for sure.