What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Interesting comment by Adam Blair (On topic)

lucablight

First Grade
Messages
6,063
So I came across this article today and I noticed an interesting comment by Adam Blair regarding one of the reasons he moved to the Tigers. I remember at the time he was off contract the Eels were one of the favourites to get his signature but that never eventuated. The comments are as follows

"I felt like I was pretty structured down at the Storm so that's part of the reason why I made my decision to move to Sydney," Blair said.
"I thought I had a bit more to offer and I felt like I couldn't really express too much of what I could do, so getting the opportunity to go to the Tigers will hopefully pay off.
link: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-for-kiwis-blair/story-e6frexnr-1226186546482

Apparently Blair's asking price was too high which is why the Eels didn't sign him but I did recall reading a few comments that he wouldn't be coming to the Eels because he had no interest in playing anymore grinding style of football. It got me thinking. One of the main things that the new coach has supposedly tried implementing in his first year was playing more "structured" ala the Melbourne Storm. Apparently this means placing more value on possession by withholding offloads and playing percentages. I have to say I wasn't too impressed with this new style of play because I felt the team was too predictable in attack and dare I say it boring to watch. I'll reserve judgment for now because we didn't have the best roster but I'm hoping something more in season 2012. I really hope with the likes of Hayne, Tonga, Sandow the team does play more ad lib football rather than repeating one out stuff of 2011. I would hate to see the Eels team lose the ability to play an exciting brand of football for the sake of playing "structured". Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Parra Pride

Coach
Messages
19,723
I don't care if we play the most boring football man has ever seen, or if we play the most exciting football man has ever seen, as long as we are winning games, we could win every game next year 1 - 0 and I would be ecstatic just because we are winning.
 

lucablight

First Grade
Messages
6,063
Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer in the message I was trying to get across. There's nothing more frustrating than a team struggling to score points or being in a situation and needing to score points but not being able to do it because of the fear of straying away from their "structured" play. I just hope the team is able to play what is in front of them rather than being robotic all the time.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
84,176
Don't be confused by what is meant by 'structure'.

Structured play is when most of the team have pre-defined roles on the field, and only a few key players have the freedom to play what's in front of them and make spur of the moment decisions with regard to risky play (e.g. offloads, kicks, cut-out passes, cross-field runs).

In a highly structured team (because all teams have structure - the difference is how much) only 2-3 key players (nearly always players in the spine) have this freedom, and therefore edge players (e.g. Mateo and Blair) are relegated to their supporting roles. This allows the decision making players to play with freedom because they know they can rely on everyone else to be where they're supposed to be.

Our biggest issue this year is that we didn't have the 2 or 3 decision makers every team needs; we had only one, and we couldn't even go back to the ad-lib experiment that worked for half a season in '09 because we didn't have enough off-loaders or line breakers.

Melbourne have three decision makers in their spine, and they were all able to finish in the top 5 for Dally M polling (as well as a minor premiership and preliminary final) because the other ten players on the field did as they were told and no more.
 

boxhead

First Grade
Messages
5,958
Don't be confused by what is meant by 'structure'.

Structured play is when most of the team have pre-defined roles on the field, and only a few key players have the freedom to play what's in front of them and make spur of the moment decisions with regard to risky play (e.g. offloads, kicks, cut-out passes, cross-field runs).

In a highly structured team (because all teams have structure - the difference is how much) only 2-3 key players (nearly always players in the spine) have this freedom, and therefore edge players (e.g. Mateo and Blair) are relegated to their supporting roles. This allows the decision making players to play with freedom because they know they can rely on everyone else to be where they're supposed to be.

Our biggest issue this year is that we didn't have the 2 or 3 decision makers every team needs; we had only one, and we couldn't even go back to the ad-lib experiment that worked for half a season in '09 because we didn't have enough off-loaders or line breakers.

Melbourne have three decision makers in their spine, and they were all able to finish in the top 5 for Dally M polling (as well as a minor premiership and preliminary final) because the other ten players on the field did as they were told and no more.

Agreed whole-heartedly. People automatically assume structure means boring football. When was the last time Melbourne were called boring with validity? They are amazing in attack due in no small part to players knowing their roles and minimizing errors.
With two new playmakers and more strike players out wide, our attack should significantly improve; we had wingers and locks filling at halfback/five-eighth this year, with a backline usually consisting of rookies or retiring out of form players.
 

hineyrulz

Post Whore
Messages
148,319
All that coin for a 2nd rower??? And people were bagging us for signing a goal kicking half for around 400k :crazy:
 

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,136
Don't be confused by what is meant by 'structure'.

Structured play is when most of the team have pre-defined roles on the field, and only a few key players have the freedom to play what's in front of them and make spur of the moment decisions with regard to risky play (e.g. offloads, kicks, cut-out passes, cross-field runs).

In a highly structured team (because all teams have structure - the difference is how much) only 2-3 key players (nearly always players in the spine) have this freedom, and therefore edge players (e.g. Mateo and Blair) are relegated to their supporting roles. This allows the decision making players to play with freedom because they know they can rely on everyone else to be where they're supposed to be.

Our biggest issue this year is that we didn't have the 2 or 3 decision makers every team needs; we had only one, and we couldn't even go back to the ad-lib experiment that worked for half a season in '09 because we didn't have enough off-loaders or line breakers.

Melbourne have three decision makers in their spine, and they were all able to finish in the top 5 for Dally M polling (as well as a minor premiership and preliminary final) because the other ten players on the field did as they were told and no more.


Yes. And our spine consisted of Jarryd Hayne this year. Full stop. One player. No wonder we were boring. We won`t be boring next year.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
84,176
I'm sure the $500k had nothing to do with him signing with the tigers

The size of his contact is directly related to his role in the team.

Because the Tigers intend to get more out of him (more and earlier ball, freedom to roam around the field, freedom to pass when he wants to) then he's worth more to them. He's a great player (imo one of the top three forwards in the game), and is somewhat wasted at a club like Melbourne or Parra who only use their edge forwards in a tight role. The flip side of this is that he's not worth as much to the Eels or Storm, since they can get nearly as much out of someone like Proctor or Maitua at a fraction of the cost.

Since there's a salary cap, each team places a value on each position on the field and fills those positions according to the position's value. Obviously a highly structured team places all value on 2 or 3 spine positions, and considerably less on edge forwards. That's why, for us at least, Blair and Mateo would be waste of money. Also why I was surprised we were after SBW, considering he'd be worth more to a club that would be willing to build their structure around him.

There's only so much salary cap to spend on key players, and those key players have to fit into some coherent strategy.
 

cleary89

Coach
Messages
16,456
The size of his contact is directly related to his role in the team.

Because the Tigers intend to get more out of him (more and earlier ball, freedom to roam around the field, freedom to pass when he wants to) then he's worth more to them. He's a great player (imo one of the top three forwards in the game), and is somewhat wasted at a club like Melbourne or Parra who only use their edge forwards in a tight role. The flip side of this is that he's not worth as much to the Eels or Storm, since they can get nearly as much out of someone like Proctor or Maitua at a fraction of the cost.

Since there's a salary cap, each team places a value on each position on the field and fills those positions according to the position's value. Obviously a highly structured team places all value on 2 or 3 spine positions, and considerably less on edge forwards. That's why, for us at least, Blair and Mateo would be waste of money. Also why I was surprised we were after SBW, considering he'd be worth more to a club that would be willing to build their structure around him.

There's only so much salary cap to spend on key players, and those key players have to fit into some coherent strategy.

Meh, anyone's only worth 10k more then what the second highest bid is.
 

Bigfella

Coach
Messages
10,102
I don't put any more weight on Blair's comments than i would on a player who claimed he did it for the challenge and not the truckload of cash he was paid.

Do tou really think a front / second rower wanted to change from a style that resulted in two gf wins, three gf appearances, multiple finals to one that resulted in one gf with a heap of bottom 8 finishes in the equivalent time?

Is adam blair secretly harbouring ambitions to chip kick from his twenty metre line and throw thirty metre cutout passes?

Or did tigers just pay more than storm could now they are down to one set of books?
 

Utey

Coach
Messages
19,328
Perhaps we played the way we did because our roster was sh*t and we didn't have the talent to play an expansive game? You don't buy Chris Sandow to play boring footy.
 

Latest posts

Top