When do we call time?

[El Diablo]

next time we sign a coach the dopes in charge should make sure they don't hire another Yul Brynner clone

 

[Poupou Escobar]

One thing about Arthur is he is a completions coach. He is totally obsessed with the concept that if you get to the kick and build pressure better than your opponent you win games. He isn't interested in getting funky with the ball early in the set or inside your own territory. Big problem arises now that teams defend better on their try line than ever before. So if you dont have any attacking flair you are stuffed. We have no attacking flair.

Actually he trusts his players to back themselves. When their confidence is down they are less likely to take risks. He said as much in the presser: https://www.parraeels.com.au/news/2018/04/08/arthur-rues-missed-opportunities/

 

[Avenger]

Actually he trusts his players to back themselves. When their confidence is down they are less likely to take risks. He said as much in the presser: https://www.parraeels.com.au/news/2018/04/08/arthur-rues-missed-opportunities/

He won't get us out of this rut. He doesn't have the talent on the field and his tactics are shit.

 

[Bazal]

He won't get us out of this rut. He doesn't have the talent on the field and his tactics are shit.

 

[Avenger]

Lets see when we are about 0-8. We will see then how patient you all become. I have seen this shit too many times. His time has come. He needs to go.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why would we need a replacement for a bloke on 700k Plus for this year and the next?

I reckon the club is off him. We might've re-signed him for unders after his f**k ups in 2016 but we also didn't have any halves contracted for 2017. And the risk of continued f**k ups hasn't gone away. Some blokes learn from their mistakes, some don't. And we have Moses now so we can get away with a lesser halves partner for him.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You'll continue to see plenty of teams with line speed like that today if we continue to play the ball slow.

Our tackle breaks show we played the ball quickly enough today. Likewise all the penalties against the Panthers, and the pointless 'official warning' the ref gave them.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

He won't get us out of this rut. He doesn't have the talent on the field and his tactics are shit.

I hope you're right mate

 

[Chipmunk]

I reckon the club is off him. We might've re-signed him for unders after his f**k ups in 2016 but we also didn't have any halves contracted for 2017. And the risk of continued f**k ups hasn't gone away. Some blokes learn from their mistakes, some don't. And we have Moses now so we can get away with a lesser halves partner for him.

I too think we'd be better off with one or the other with Moses/Norman, with a more 'suitable' half, rather than a lesser half. We just need someone who can kick and tackle.

 

[Dibs]

I imahine an asttacking coach will come in this week to help put.

Asstacking? Sounds like Gould

 

[Chipmunk]

Our tackle breaks show we played the ball quickly enough today. Likewise all the penalties against the Panthers, and the pointless 'official warning' the ref gave them.

Tackle Breaks are another one of these useless stats when looked at in isolation and quite often more of a sign of the attitude of the opposition in defence rather then the quality of the attack. After all, the hapless inept attack of the Dogs had 51 tackle breaks against the Panthers when they've struggled most weeks to get 24 tackle breaks.

Another indication of there lack of importance is the only game the Raiders have won, is the least amount of tackle breaks they've had all year and the Dogs have only lost the tackle breaks once all season.

 

[Dibs]

Ok deal. As of this moment I am a changed man. I will never mention them till the finals if we arent in it.

Mention who?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Tackle Breaks are another one of these useless stats when looked at in isolation and quite often more of a sign of the attitude of the opposition in defence rather then the quality of the attack. After all, the hapless inept attack of the Dogs had 51 tackle breaks against the Panthers when they've struggled most weeks to get 24 tackle breaks.

The point is that quick play-the-balls follow poor initial contact, which is indicated by tackle breaks. Of course you don't look at them in isolation - you look at them aggregated across 34 players over 80 minutes.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Mention who?

*whom

 

[Chipmunk]

The point is that quick play-the-balls follow poor initial contact, which is indicated by tackle breaks. Of course you don't look at them in isolation - you look at them aggregated across 34 players over 80 minutes.

If your theory was correct then you would expect the team with the most tackle breaks, to be playing the ball faster, ultimately getting the most metres and expected to winning the game. But if you go and check the stats none of those are a result of the tackle breaks in matches.

 

[Bazal]

If your theory was correct then you would expect the team with the most tackle breaks to be winning the game, but as the statistics show, that isn't the case.

Why would you expect that?

Are tackle breaks the only relevant statistic for winning a game?

 

[Chipmunk]

Why would you expect that?

Are tackle breaks the only relevant statistic for winning a game?

I went and edited my post slightly. But anyway, I think Tackle Breaks are a myth and a completely useless and irrelevant stat that means zero to whether you're going to be successful or not. Just go and take a look at the tackle break stats of each match and it appears that the loser of the match, quite often has the most tackle breaks

To say that all tackle breaks lead to quicker play the balls is complete garbage.

 

[Bazal]

I went and edited my post slightly. But anyway, I think Tackle Breaks are a myth and a completely useless and irrelevant stat that means zero to whether you're going to be successful or not. Just go and take a look at the tackle break stats of each match and it appears that the loser of the match, quite often has the most tackle breaks

To say that all tackle breaks lead to quicker play the balls is complete garbage.

No it isn't.

Tackle breaks usually mean that a player has bent or broken the line, thus the completed tackle will not usually be dominant, thus the likelihood of a fast play the ball is much higher. Or a penalty for bludging in the ruck to slow down the play the ball.

Simples

 

[Poupou Escobar]

To say that all tackle breaks lead to quicker play the balls is complete garbage.

Nobody said that all tackle breaks lead to anything. Just that they are a good indicator of ruck speed.

 

[Chipmunk]

No it isn't.

Tackle breaks usually mean that a player has bent or broken the line, thus the completed tackle will not usually be dominant, thus the likelihood of a fast play the ball is much higher. Or a penalty for bludging in the ruck to slow down the play the ball.

Simples

So of the 8 games this weekend, 6 teams won the tackle breaks convincing (by 20% or more). The other two matches were less than 20% difference. Of those 8 games, 5 teams with the highest tackle breaks lost the game and 3 teams won the game. In only 3 of the 8 matches did the team with the most Tackle Breaks have the most line breaks. They only made the most metres total and most metres average per set in half the amount of games. Post contact metres were within 5% for most games on the weekend. In four matches the post contact metres was below 5% difference for both teams, so using Pou Bears 52/48 possession is even possession we will call that even post contact. In the other 4 instances where the post contact metres were above 5% difference, then team with the most tackle breaks, lost the post contact metres on 3 of the 4 occasions. In the other 4 matches it was 2 each.

Again, my point of all this is that Tackle Breaks are an irrelevant stat in determining whether you're going to have success or not.