Wests Tigers 2016...The winning formula..

[innsaneink]

The game in 2005 was also refereed with attack the focus
It changed drastically the next and subsequent years

The Cowboys recent run of success is no way similar to WTs 2005, their defence has been solid generally and backed with a top kicking game allowing them the freedom to attack

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

The game in 2005 was also refereed with attack the focus
It changed drastically the next and subsequent years

The Cowboys recent run of success is no way similar to WTs 2005, their defence has been solid generally and backed with a top kicking game allowing them the freedom to attack

I agree with you about the refereeing, but don't entirely about the Cowboys defence.
However all that doesn't change the point of my original post, that if you score more points than the opposition , it's impossible to lose.

 

[Russell]

Unfortunately GCT,the WTs find it difficult to score more points than the opposition,therefore guaranteed they won't win..they have proved that many times,even when they have scored more than the opposition in the first half of a game they still end up losing because they can't defend a lead,I'm with Russ on this one,you were only throwing your 2 cents worth in…but I'm onto you..

I agree with you on the fact that we find it difficult. But that wasn't Russell's point.
Russ made a completely false statement, I merely corrected that , and I think my 2 cents worth is the same value anyone else's.
Besides that, we weren't talking about half games, just games
In fact, your statements about those games that we lost after a big lead, proves my point.
The reason that we lost them, was that we didn't score more than the opposition
: :smiley:

Well, I don't think I made a completely false statement at all, I did not need correcting - I think you misunderstood the point I was making, or you just wanted to have a go.

The point was that people say "score more points etc….." Every team that does that wins - we are not all idiots - we all know that (especially now that I was corrected!!!!).

The point was, that we can score heaps of points but if we can't defend, then we will let in more than we score and so lose the game.

I am sure you knew, that was what I meant - so I am just correcting your correction.

 

[innsaneink]

The game in 2005 was also refereed with attack the focus
It changed drastically the next and subsequent years

The Cowboys recent run of success is no way similar to WTs 2005, their defence has been solid generally and backed with a top kicking game allowing them the freedom to attack

I agree with you about the refereeing, but don't entirely about the Cowboys defence.
However all that doesn't change the point of my original post, that if you score more points than the opposition , it's impossible to lose.

The last five years NQ made the semis they conceded an avg of 76 tries against
in 2005 we conceded 103 tries yet won the comp…(you get the spoon these days with those stats) we conceded more that year than we did from seasons 06-06 when we missed the semis
You cannot use 05 as a gauge to anything really....it was a season like no other ...one out of the box, and why they changed the rules re the ruck immediately

 

[happy_tiger]

But in 2005 what won us the premiership

It was our defence in the semis

I think we kept the opposition on average to 9 points a game in the semis

That win premierships , not scoring 30 points and hoping you don't get run down

 

[Nelson]

But in 2005 what won us the premiership

It was our defence in the semis

I think we kept the opposition on average to 9 points a game in the semis

That win premierships , **not scoring 30 points and hoping you don't get run down**

We tried that against the Raiders and the Dogs last season…and we got run down.

 

[Nelson]

The game in 2005 was also refereed with attack the focus
It changed drastically the next and subsequent years

The Cowboys recent run of success is no way similar to WTs 2005, their defence has been solid generally and backed with a top kicking game allowing them the freedom to attack

I agree with you about the refereeing, but don't entirely about the Cowboys defence.
However all that doesn't change the point of my original post, that if you score more points than the opposition , it's impossible to lose.

Really? You bothered to make a post to make the point that the aim of the game is to score more points than the opposition? You honestly felt that people needed educating on that point?

 

[happy_tiger]

But in 2005 what won us the premiership

It was our defence in the semis

I think we kept the opposition on average to 9 points a game in the semis

That win premierships , **not scoring 30 points and hoping you don't get run down**

We tried that against the Raiders and the Dogs last season…and we got run down.

I could be wrong , but I reckon the 1st Raiders game was the one that disappointed Taylor the most and lead to the defensive changes he worked on

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

The game in 2005 was also refereed with attack the focus
It changed drastically the next and subsequent years

The Cowboys recent run of success is no way similar to WTs 2005, their defence has been solid generally and backed with a top kicking game allowing them the freedom to attack

I agree with you about the refereeing, but don't entirely about the Cowboys defence.
However all that doesn't change the point of my original post, that if you score more points than the opposition , it's impossible to lose.

Really? You bothered to make a post to make the point that the aim of the game is to score more points than the opposition? You honestly felt that people needed educating on that point?

Obviously some do , as they still think that what was originally said was a correct statement,
Have it it your own way though, if that's what you want.
So now it's official, If you score more points than the opposition, then you still can Lose the game. Happy now??

 

[innsaneink]

Nobody on here said that, you tool

 

[westTAHger]

I would like to see that when wests-tigers have a decent lead, they do not lose the game.

Eg, If leading by 18, kick a field goal to make is 19.

If leading by more than 20, do not ever "put the cue in the rack", or think " we've got this ", as we all have witnessed in the past, they will be run down, and lose.

This is the main aspect, I don't want to encounter again.

 

[TrueTiger]

But in 2005 what won us the premiership

It was our defence in the semis

I think we kept the opposition on average to 9 points a game in the semis

That win premierships , **not scoring 30 points and hoping you don't get run down**

We tried that against the Raiders and the Dogs last season…and we got run down.

I could be wrong , but I reckon the 1st Raiders game was the one that disappointed Taylor the most and lead to the defensive changes he worked on

Totally agree Hap,the team had a very good lead,they attacked well and scored points,however when the Raiders fought back and pressured the Tiges,they couldn't hold them out and had very little in defense…This in my opinion was the rise of Taylor ball,a structure put in place to strengthen the teams defensive line and tackling regime..As has been said before,it was boring one out stuff,but the younger boys needed to learn what it is like to play in the NRL and have a solid defense to compliment their attacking flair and brilliance.Taylor already knew the attacking talent within his team,he also knew how poor the defense was...

 

[stevetiger]

I see those losses as being about Taylor ball. If you heard him talk at half time he stressed defence and we lost those games. I think we went into our shell and didn't trouble them at all in attack and then they could unload on us.

I think he realized the downside of just playing defence.

 

[Tim Sheens]

The Raiders game was certainly the catalyst for "taylorball", though for mine it was basically the same defensive structure, with dead boring (and wrong) one out attack with a kick at the end as punishment for losing after that lead, along with the one against the dogs.

It only lasted for a few weeks with a little more freedom each week from the return Titans game following the bye onwards. It had to change as apart from disappointing the supporters, it started to alienate the players and led to much disquiet post the debacle that the Cows game was.

I hope there was some hidden benefit that I still fail to see, despite taking on board the opinions of others, as all I saw was a reasonably promising start to the season fall apart rather quickly. I was not happy at the time and would have wanted Taylor gone had it continued any longer, but he did make changes and am reasonably pleased with the shakeup of personnel, even though the priority change did not quite work out as planned.

 

[happy_tiger]

I see those losses as being about Taylor ball. If you heard him talk at half time he stressed defence and we lost those games. I think we went into our shell and didn't trouble them at all in attack and then they could unload on us.

I think he realized the downside of just playing defence.

Just like the other 15 clubs Steve

They see the downside of just playing defence as well

Or maybe there defence is that good it creates turnovers , keeps the opposition's completion rates down and they capitalize when the opposition tires through the extra defence they are forced to do

Just maybe

 

[TrueTiger]

I see those losses as being about Taylor ball. If you heard him talk at half time he stressed defence and we lost those games. I think we went into our shell and didn't trouble them at all in attack and then they could unload on us.

I think he realized the downside of just playing defence.

Were you in the sheds at halftime Steve??.. sounds like you are closer to the action than just summising…just saying...

 

[stevetiger]

I see those losses as being about Taylor ball. If you heard him talk at half time he stressed defence and we lost those games. I think we went into our shell and didn't trouble them at all in attack and then they could unload on us.

I think he realized the downside of just playing defence.

Were you in the sheds at halftime Steve??.. sounds like you are closer to the action than just summising…just saying...

No but I remember JT coming out at half time whilst watching it on TV and JT stated defence will win us this game or something similar. That to me showed how dumb the tactics and game plans were at that point in the season. A more seasoned coach would have realized that you can't go into your shell and would have said something like that.

 

[happy_tiger]

I see those losses as being about Taylor ball. If you heard him talk at half time he stressed defence and we lost those games. I think we went into our shell and didn't trouble them at all in attack and then they could unload on us.

I think he realized the downside of just playing defence.

Were you in the sheds at halftime Steve??.. sounds like you are closer to the action than just summising…just saying...

No but I remember JT coming out at half time whilst watching it on TV and JT stated defence will win us this game or something similar. That to me showed how dumb the tactics and game plans were at that point in the season. A more seasoned coach would have realized that you can't go into your shell and would have said something like that.

I've heard heaps of players ,coaches , commentators say that defence will win games

I can remember Fatty Vautin famously telling the rest of the Qld SOO side during game 3 of the 1987 series "That if they don't score again we win "

But again your right and many other seasoned football judges , players ,coaches and commentators are wrong

 

[stevetiger]

But again your right

Good to see you have finally come to your senses. Lets all hope that JT gets it this year as well and continues his changed tactics that he was building on in the second half of last year.

 

[TrueTiger]

But again your right

Good to see you have finally come to your senses. Lets all hope that JT gets it this year as well and continues his changed tactics that he was building on in the second half of last year.

And hopefully the players learn that their defense has to be a great deal better than last year or a bottom 4 finish will be on again…