Wests Tigers Deep Dive of the Week

[Jolls]

Hes talking 20/40s not 40/20s

I think ive only seen one or two done.

The fact we rarely see them attempted i think would be due to it being either on a very early tackle.or.if its.late in the set and the attack.is still stuck in the 20 and theyre.losing the ruck

Yes, missed that - 20/40s. Getting it right definitely shifts momentum; but get it wrong.......

I can't find any stats on 20/40s for 2025. I need to keep digging. Anyone recall games where they were kicked?

 

[gregjm87]

Donkeys kicked 11, Storm 7 and both appeared in the GF. The Silvertails nailed 4, the Sharks and Faders and the Riff 2. Everyone else kicked one bar us, the Titans, Cows, Rabbits and Drag Queens.

those that kicked no 40/20s finished 12-16. The only team to kick a 40/20 and finish below us five was the Knights.

Is it a lack of kicking ability or is it a lack of smarts?

It is clearly more difficult that it is to write - but there is a significant gap that we need to close to be in the top eight.

We need to be smarter

All great stats and I agree with your summation however as ink said I was saying 20-40s as momentum changers.

40-20s I think are usually executed when a team is on top to further ram home their advantage. They are typically still left late in the count and performed after a fast play the ball when wingers are caught between needing to drop and getting sucked inwards due to the middle collapsing in.

Yes, missed that - 20/40s. Getting it right definitely shifts momentum; but get it wrong.......

I can't find any stats on 20/40s for 2025. I need to keep digging. Anyone recall games where they were kicked?

Getting it wrong having dire consequences is really only if you've kicked out on the full. There is no excuse, skills wise, for that to happen. Yes you are conceding a little territory by kicking early but realistically how much territory when the alternative is a couple extra hit ups and kicking straight down the fullbacks throat?

 

[Jolls]

All great stats and I agree with your summation however as ink said I was saying 20-40s as momentum changers.

40-20s I think are usually executed when a team is on top to further ram home their advantage. They are typically still left late in the count and performed after a fast play the ball when wingers are caught between needing to drop and getting sucked inwards due to the middle collapsing in.

Getting it wrong having dire consequences is really only if you've kicked out on the full. There is no excuse, skills wise, for that to happen. Yes you are conceding a little territory by kicking early but realistically how much territory when the alternative is a couple extra hit ups and kicking straight down the fullbacks throat?

I follow the logic but think that the issue is that you are kicking so deep in your own half that you are handing over possesion (if it doesn't go out) in good field position. I haven't looked at the 25 Stats but the 24 stats we were one of the worst for starting our sets deep in our own half and handing the ball over to the opposition shallow in theirs. So it may well be a deliberate coaching decision.

I agree that it a 20/40 is executed correctly it is a momentum changer; however, across the board I don't recall seeing one executed in 2025. I also can't find any data that shows successful 20/40 or 40/20 vs attempted.

It would be interesting to dig into, as this would validate you assertion that skills wise there is no excuse for it not to be successful. I don't disagree with the statement, I just don't have any evidence that supports it - and not being a kicker, or playing with that rule during my playing days I don't have any practical experience to fall back on either.

I expect that 20/40s are rare for three reasons:

• Opportunity/geometry makes it difficult to find a 20/40 window. To get the reward you need the ball to go 60+ metres with a favourable bounce with no contest. The combination of kick launched from inside 20m + ball goes out inside opposition 40m + opponent out of position probably limits the execution window.
• High risk. If you miss, you give up territory and have probably provided a team with momentum a good attacking position. The negative payoff if it fails is greater than other options and modern coaches prefer season-long "risk management.
• Coaching & practice emphasis. I expect that Benji and co consider the 20/40 and 40/20 to be a low value event with high execution difficulty in comparison to other options. Given that coaching time is allocated to repeatable, high-value skills like repeatable repeats: set plays, repeatable kicking moves such as grubbers, high kicks, or short grubbers inside the 20. Players who kick for field position are trained and encouraged to pursue the coach-approved plays — so it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. A slef licking ice cream that stifles on your feet thinking.

While I agree that NRL level kickers should have the skill set to execute 20/40s the rarity is mostly likely a mix of: low natural opportunity + high execution difficulty + modern tactical risk aversion.

 

[gregjm87]

I follow the logic but think that the issue is that you are kicking so deep in your own half that you are handing over possesion (if it doesn't go out) in good field position. I haven't looked at the 25 Stats but the 24 stats we were one of the worst for starting our sets deep in our own half and handing the ball over to the opposition shallow in theirs. So it may well be a deliberate coaching decision.

I agree that it a 20/40 is executed correctly it is a momentum changer; however, across the board I don't recall seeing one executed in 2025. I also can't find any data that shows successful 20/40 or 40/20 vs attempted.

It would be interesting to dig into, as this would validate you assertion that skills wise there is no excuse for it not to be successful. I don't disagree with the statement, I just don't have any evidence that supports it - and not being a kicker, or playing with that rule during my playing days I don't have any practical experience to fall back on either.

I expect that 20/40s are rare for three reasons:

• Opportunity/geometry makes it difficult to find a 20/40 window. To get the reward you need the ball to go 60+ metres with a favourable bounce with no contest. The combination of kick launched from inside 20m + ball goes out inside opposition 40m + opponent out of position probably limits the execution window.
• High risk. If you miss, you give up territory and have probably provided a team with momentum a good attacking position. The negative payoff if it fails is greater than other options and modern coaches prefer season-long "risk management.
• Coaching & practice emphasis. I expect that Benji and co consider the 20/40 and 40/20 to be a low value event with high execution difficulty in comparison to other options. Given that coaching time is allocated to repeatable, high-value skills like repeatable repeats: set plays, repeatable kicking moves such as grubbers, high kicks, or short grubbers inside the 20. Players who kick for field position are trained and encouraged to pursue the coach-approved plays — so it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. A slef licking ice cream that stifles on your feet thinking.

While I agree that NRL level kickers should have the skill set to execute 20/40s the rarity is mostly likely a mix of: low natural opportunity + high execution difficulty + modern tactical risk aversion.

My argument isn't so much that it would be highly successful. It would be defended more often than it would be successful. My argument of it as a skill is that it should very rarely, if ever, go horribly wrong i.e out on the full.
Let's say it is typically kicked on the 3rd, in the likely event it is defended, even relatively easy is the outcome really any worse to taking 2 more runs and kicking on the last?
It would be a clearing kick collected about the 30m and returned to about 40m. Then next couple plays will likely be one out runs getting just past the 50m as they centralise possession and get back behind the ball.
Yes it is obviously still good territory for the opposition but let's now look at the alternative.
Instead of attempting the 20-40 you instead take 2 extra hit ups. This gains you a likely 15m(ish). You can't really spread the ball out of trouble as the defence is winning the ruck (as it has been noted they have the momentum) and the wingers are up as they aren't scared of an early kick.
Last tackle comes you kick long but the back 3 are ready for it, they collect the ball on the full just inside the 20 and return it to just over the 30. Next run still probably one out for about 7m. The following, well the centres and a few forwards are already back as they weren't pushing forward on our last. They throw a little extra shape (nothing threatening, just enough for us to not dominate the tackle) and get another 10m. They are now about 5m worse off for us waiting until the last to kick. But they are instead in a better position ruck speed wise where they can now use that momentum they've enjoyed. In my opinion this is possibly a worse outcome to if you kick early (unsuccessfully) for a 20-40 (noting this tactic is only used as a momentum breaker).
But let's look at the other considerations. Reduced risk of an error conceding red zone possession. Increased chance to spread out of trouble with opposition wingers needing to retreat early to defend the kick. Obviously the chance of a successful 20-40, particularly if the opposition wingers don't drop. As I said the kick itself is a very easy skill. With the only real potential negative being kicked out on the full. Once again no excuse to not execute the kick (it being collected by the back 3 isn't a failure of execution).


I haven't looked at the 25 Stats but the 24 stats we were one of the worst for starting our sets deep in our own half and handing the ball over to the opposition shallow in theirs

Clearly the status quo isn't working. We are getting poor outcomes trying to run the ball out of our end. So, we need to find an alternative.

As for your 3 dot points.

The distance is an easy kick for a first grade half. Yes you still need the geometry and the bounce but it is still a simple enough kick.
The fullback will of course be back but he would very rarely be in position to collect on the full as early he is typically the only one back. This not only increases your chances of successful attempt but reduced their kick return metres. If the wingers are back this is a win for us as it creates a reduced defensive line.

As outlined above I think the risk is really minimal when you compare the outcomes of attempting and not.

Coaching, well you have listed kicks as repeatable skills to be coached. Why not coach and practice (or repeat) a punchy 20-40 kick? It would be a practiced skill like any other.

 

[innsaneink]

Youve just had a defensive set in the red zone ...or your own half...two or three hit ups by the wingers and then forwards have to chase a 20/40 attempt and defend again....i think those extra 2 or 3 tackles the forwards are using for a breather are crucial...id say thats why its not a favourable tactic

 

[Jolls]

My argument isn't so much that it would be highly successful. It would be defended more often than it would be successful. My argument of it as a skill is that it should very rarely, if ever, go horribly wrong i.e out on the full.
Let's say it is typically kicked on the 3rd, in the likely event it is defended, even relatively easy is the outcome really any worse to taking 2 more runs and kicking on the last?
It would be a clearing kick collected about the 30m and returned to about 40m. Then next couple plays will likely be one out runs getting just past the 50m as they centralise possession and get back behind the ball.
Yes it is obviously still good territory for the opposition but let's now look at the alternative.
Instead of attempting the 20-40 you instead take 2 extra hit ups. This gains you a likely 15m(ish). You can't really spread the ball out of trouble as the defence is winning the ruck (as it has been noted they have the momentum) and the wingers are up as they aren't scared of an early kick.
Last tackle comes you kick long but the back 3 are ready for it, they collect the ball on the full just inside the 20 and return it to just over the 30. Next run still probably one out for about 7m. The following, well the centres and a few forwards are already back as they weren't pushing forward on our last. They throw a little extra shape (nothing threatening, just enough for us to not dominate the tackle) and get another 10m. They are now about 5m worse off for us waiting until the last to kick. But they are instead in a better position ruck speed wise where they can now use that momentum they've enjoyed. In my opinion this is possibly a worse outcome to if you kick early (unsuccessfully) for a 20-40 (noting this tactic is only used as a momentum breaker).
But let's look at the other considerations. Reduced risk of an error conceding red zone possession. Increased chance to spread out of trouble with opposition wingers needing to retreat early to defend the kick. Obviously the chance of a successful 20-40, particularly if the opposition wingers don't drop. As I said the kick itself is a very easy skill. With the only real potential negative being kicked out on the full. Once again no excuse to not execute the kick (it being collected by the back 3 isn't a failure of execution).


I haven't looked at the 25 Stats but the 24 stats we were one of the worst for starting our sets deep in our own half and handing the ball over to the opposition shallow in theirs

Clearly the status quo isn't working. We are getting poor outcomes trying to run the ball out of our end. So, we need to find an alternative.

As for your 3 dot points.

The distance is an easy kick for a first grade half. Yes you still need the geometry and the bounce but it is still a simple enough kick.
The fullback will of course be back but he would very rarely be in position to collect on the full as early he is typically the only one back. This not only increases your chances of successful attempt but reduced their kick return metres. If the wingers are back this is a win for us as it creates a reduced defensive line.

As outlined above I think the risk is really minimal when you compare the outcomes of attempting and not.

Coaching, well you have listed kicks as repeatable skills to be coached. Why not coach and practice (or repeat) a punchy 20-40 kick? It would be a practiced skill like any other.

I don't disagree with any of the points you have been making. My previous post was trying to understand why no teams take this approach. While the kick may be simple enough the risk v reward, as seen by the NRL coaches, musn't be worth the effort.

The three points I listed were the likely reasons, from what I can fathom, as to why it is not attempted on a regular basis. Ink's point above is another reason.

I do believe it wouldbe a great momentum changer. especially if it could be done from the base of the ruck on an early tackle set. The right place, timing and result is essential for it to outweigh the risk of handing the ball over early for a another set ,to a side that already has the momentum, is a risk that the NRL coaches don't appear to be willing to take.

 

[gregjm87]

I don't disagree with any of the points you have been making. My previous post was trying to understand why no teams take this approach. While the kick may be simple enough the risk v reward, as seen by the NRL coaches, musn't be worth the effort.

The three points I listed were the likely reasons, from what I can fathom, as to why it is not attempted on a regular basis. Ink's point above is another reason.

I do believe it wouldbe a great momentum changer. especially if it could be done from the base of the ruck on an early tackle set. The right place, timing and result is essential for it to outweigh the risk of handing the ball over early for a another set ,to a side that already has the momentum, is a risk that the NRL coaches don't appear to be willing to take.

Yeah, I think Ink raises a really good point regarding fatigue. I guess it would be on our halves to know what our forwards can and can't push through and when. Maybe a tactic best used shortly after interchanges have been made or when we have more mobile middles rather than say a Royce Hunt on the field.
I agree that coaches currently aren't willing to take the risk. But I do also think coaches are far to risk adverse. Even something they may consider a good idea, often they won't implement it until others do e.g. short drop outs. Most importantly we won't compete with better teams playing the same footy as them.

 

[Jolls]

Yeah, I think Ink raises a really good point regarding fatigue. I guess it would be on our halves to know what our forwards can and can't push through and when. Maybe a tactic best used shortly after interchanges have been made or when we have more mobile middles rather than say a Royce Hunt on the field.
I agree that coaches currently aren't willing to take the risk. But I do also think coaches are far to risk adverse. Even something they may consider a good idea, often they won't implement it until others do e.g. short drop outs. Most importantly we won't compete with better teams playing the same footy as them.

You are on the money about us having to play our style of footy and not following the crowd. I raised this in one of the earlier deep dives on what we can learn from the top teams. The key is not to imitate them but identify the key traits and how we could use them to develop our brand of footy.

I will try to find some data on attempted 40/20 and 20/40 to quantify the success rates. I know from our perspective Api attempted tow or three that I recall and Luai at least one - 0 success rate.

 

[happy_tiger]

Youve just had a defensive set in the red zone ...or your own half...two or three hit ups by the wingers and then forwards have to chase a 20/40 attempt and defend again....i think those extra 2 or 3 tackles the forwards are using for a breather are crucial...id say thats why its not a favourable tactic

Big risk ....losing field position as well

 

[gregjm87]

You are on the money about us having to play our style of footy and not following the crowd. I raised this in one of the earlier deep dives on what we can learn from the top teams. The key is not to imitate them but identify the key traits and how we could use them to develop our brand of footy.

I will try to find some data on attempted 40/20 and 20/40 to quantify the success rates. I know from our perspective Api attempted tow or three that I recall and Luai at least one - 0 success rate.

What makes it so viable to me as a momentum breaker is even when you don't get the desired result, I think it really sets you up to win some rucks. Yes, by the end of the set the opposition will be in position for an attacking kick but forcing them to turn and get behind the ball and centre it before they can get some attack should really give us the chance to gain some ascendancy, even if ultimately it is at the wrong end of the field.

 

[tigerballs]

Yeah, I think Ink raises a really good point regarding fatigue. I guess it would be on our halves to know what our forwards can and can't push through and when. Maybe a tactic best used shortly after interchanges have been made or when we have more mobile middles rather than say a Royce Hunt on the field.
I agree that coaches currently aren't willing to take the risk. But I do also think coaches are far to risk adverse. Even something they may consider a good idea, often they won't implement it until others do e.g. short drop outs. Most importantly we won't compete with better teams playing the same footy as them.

Until last season, short kick offs and drop outs were unheard of. Now, everyone is in on the act. That's the great problem with rugby league, there's very few coaches who are prepared to gamble outside the box until someone else tries it first. Everyone is trying to play Melbourne at their own game.
If 20/40's or 40/20's were employed as a determined tactic early in the game, the defence is in two minds from the get go. Can you imagine if the receiving team attempted a 20/40 on the third tackle of the game? I doubt the fullback would be at home and if everyone is aware, it simply becomes a race for the ball. There's a more than reasonable chance of success and even if the ball doesn't go out, or the ball isn't recovered, the other team has only one option: one out hit ups from dummy half.
It's like how the running game sets up the passing game and vice versa in the NFL. The element of surprise.

 

[innsaneink]

There was 37 succesful 40/20s this year in 203 games...1 every five and a half games...would be interesting to know how many were unsuccesful attempts

 

[BZN]

Thanks for your efforts, though you should definatelyh be getting to bed earlier instead of feeding us 🙂

I love your anti Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon stuff.

 

[BZN]

My argument isn't so much that it would be highly successful. It would be defended more often than it would be successful. My argument of it as a skill is that it should very rarely, if ever, go horribly wrong i.e out on the full.
Let's say it is typically kicked on the 3rd, in the likely event it is defended, even relatively easy is the outcome really any worse to taking 2 more runs and kicking on the last?
It would be a clearing kick collected about the 30m and returned to about 40m. Then next couple plays will likely be one out runs getting just past the 50m as they centralise possession and get back behind the ball.
Yes it is obviously still good territory for the opposition but let's now look at the alternative.
Instead of attempting the 20-40 you instead take 2 extra hit ups. This gains you a likely 15m(ish). You can't really spread the ball out of trouble as the defence is winning the ruck (as it has been noted they have the momentum) and the wingers are up as they aren't scared of an early kick.
Last tackle comes you kick long but the back 3 are ready for it, they collect the ball on the full just inside the 20 and return it to just over the 30. Next run still probably one out for about 7m. The following, well the centres and a few forwards are already back as they weren't pushing forward on our last. They throw a little extra shape (nothing threatening, just enough for us to not dominate the tackle) and get another 10m. They are now about 5m worse off for us waiting until the last to kick. But they are instead in a better position ruck speed wise where they can now use that momentum they've enjoyed. In my opinion this is possibly a worse outcome to if you kick early (unsuccessfully) for a 20-40 (noting this tactic is only used as a momentum breaker).
But let's look at the other considerations. Reduced risk of an error conceding red zone possession. Increased chance to spread out of trouble with opposition wingers needing to retreat early to defend the kick. Obviously the chance of a successful 20-40, particularly if the opposition wingers don't drop. As I said the kick itself is a very easy skill. With the only real potential negative being kicked out on the full. Once again no excuse to not execute the kick (it being collected by the back 3 isn't a failure of execution).


I haven't looked at the 25 Stats but the 24 stats we were one of the worst for starting our sets deep in our own half and handing the ball over to the opposition shallow in theirs

Clearly the status quo isn't working. We are getting poor outcomes trying to run the ball out of our end. So, we need to find an alternative.

As for your 3 dot points.

The distance is an easy kick for a first grade half. Yes you still need the geometry and the bounce but it is still a simple enough kick.
The fullback will of course be back but he would very rarely be in position to collect on the full as early he is typically the only one back. This not only increases your chances of successful attempt but reduced their kick return metres. If the wingers are back this is a win for us as it creates a reduced defensive line.

As outlined above I think the risk is really minimal when you compare the outcomes of attempting and not.

Coaching, well you have listed kicks as repeatable skills to be coached. Why not coach and practice (or repeat) a punchy 20-40 kick? It would be a practiced skill like any other.

Wow!!! @Jolls is really inspiring you, eh?