@foreveratiger said:
JT realises that another year like last year in pushing through his structured footy could have a massive bearing on Brooks, Moses and even Tedesco. I think his bitten the bullet and is allowing them to do what there natural instincts tells them to do.
What they need to learn is how to close out a game and fall back on a structured game plan so other sides don't get a sniff when we go out to a healthy lead.
I'm glad that JT is going to allow this to occur cause it was painful to watch 2 kids play a brand of Footy that was foreign to them.
The 1st half of the Season when Potter was Coaching them in 2014…..I remember being at the Titans vs Wests Tigers game in 30+ degree heat and it was the Tedesco and Brooks show and a week later the same thing vs Souths.....that is how these kids play the game.
I think your argument is incorrect. I truly believe that letting the young players "do what their natural instincts tell them" is exactly what results in teams being unable to fall back on structures when a game becomes more even / tight.
It's easy to play just your natural attacking style when the bounce of the ball or possession is in your favour, particularly over short periods. But being 80 mins, usually those edges even out, and the opposition will not stop coming at you just because you've amassed a lead and now decided to fall back to structures. Indeed, that idea of "shutting up shop" is already well known in sport to be a psychological incentive to the opposition.
No, I think we need to be a team that creates healthy leads from structured play. I think we should aspire to be the Andre Agassi of rugby league, where we play low-error, threatening football until the opposition gives us the chance to go on the attack. We want the opposition to know we are always in the game, that we cannot be easily blown away or reeled in, that we will not give them many opportunities, and that we will strike when they give us opportunities.
Unfortunately, we need to be a team more like Melbourne Storm. Take away for a moment the "Melbourne spine", and you have a side that typically plays a high calibre of low-error footy. They don't flog many teams, but they are hard to beat either at minute 1 or minute 80\. They are certainly beatable on any day, but on average their structure-based approach and discipline win more matches than they lose. They have some pretty average footballers who manage to play to the structure and [to the role given](to%20the%20role%20given) with success. They happen to have a very good coach, who is able to come up with the structures and get the players to stick to them.
Melbourne do not win games because their key players blow the opposition away. In fact, I'd argue that they do not have the most dangerous players in any given position - even Slater, Smith and Cronk are inferior attacking options compared to select players at other clubs. Melbourne are 64% for wins over the last 7 seasons, including 55% when playing away. The next best side is Manly who are 59% overall but 47% away, meaning they rely more heavily on home-ground wins. Tigers over the same period are 46% wins including 38% away.
So you quote Titans v Tigers in 2014, sure. What happened to that season? If Tedesco and Brooks played a terrific brand of footy under the ex-coach for those two rounds, why did the season go to pot? Did the former coach also fail to set the right structures for our specific players? Or did those players simply fail to achieve the same level of excellence week in and out over 24 matches?
I'll quote another 5 games for you from last year, to illustrate what I mean:
Tigers v Saints Rd 2 (CSS)
Tigers v Dogs Rd 4 (ANZ)
Tigers v Raiders Rd 7 (LO)
Dogs v Tigers Rd 8 (ANZ)
Tigers v Titans Rd 13 (LO)
Rd 2 we blew Dragons away over first 20 minutes, a fine game from Tedesco, and managed to hold out a fairly average Dragons side for the last 80\. Benji Marshall was in average form and they never threatened our lead, so I would not say our structures won the back half of the match.
Rd 4 we blew the Dogs away over 20 minutes, but they came home over the top of us and took golden point. Abject failure to maintain the level that got us to the lead, or to protect the lead.
Rd 7 again blew the Raiders away in the first 20, almost the same as against Dragons (left-side-heavy attack). Raiders jagged a weak try to stupid Shannon Boyd right before half time, then came out second half to put us away.
Rd 8 - same venue as Rd 4 except this time the Dogs could not arrest the flow and play themselves back into the match. I'd argue we faced more or less the same Dogs side (first game was without Reynolds and Jackson started at 6, second game without Graham and J Mo), somewhat inconsistent like ourselves, and the second time around they just could not get that momentum to reel us in. It was supposed to be the turning point in our season.
Rd 13 - Titans outclassed us early but we stayed in the match, jagging a few questionable tries and unexpectedly hitting the lead. But Titans threw it around at the death and broke the line, with a long-range try to Anthony Don, of all the differently-abled wingers going around.
These games do not just fail to show a side that can protect its lead with structured play, it shows a side that doesn't really know how to play structured across 80 minutes at all. A team that can get 20 points ahead of Dogs twice in a month, to lose one and run away with it in the nother… that's just inconsistency for you from a young side (and from the Dogs too). The Titans match shows that we can still come from behind, but even a small lead is in trouble because we are so inconsistent and fail to play to structures at any stage.
All these games show that we have a really good 20 minutes in us, and depending on the opposition, we may or may not be able to defend that lead. It should not depend on the opposition, it should depend on us. The game play that puts us in front should be the same play that occurs when we are protecting a lead, or chasing a deficit. You need at least 3 x 20 minutes of good football to win more than half of your games, not just one standout 20.
And that is why you don't just let two 20 year olds play whatever inspiration they get, because it's not enough to win more than half of 24 rounds of 4 x 20 minute games.
