A couple of coaching errors today

[Sharkies all the Way]

I think Sullivan has showed he can start on the field. He had a bad game starting against Canberra only because he was playin 1/2 back not hooker. Its obvious we need him out their, he provides us soley with go forward and in the early stages of the game, like yesterday, he can help provide us with a nice buffer against ok opposition. Not putting him on the starting line up may be costing us some early tries IMO.

 

[millersnose]

kent and sully went good against the knights

however the knights lineup yesterday was not a top eight prospect

i am surprised by the amount of intelligent posters who have been carried away with a narrow win against a depleted opposition

 

[Sharkies all the Way]

It may have been a 'depleted oppositon' however we were also depleted, without three KEY players in Bailey, Peachey and Kimmorley. Maybe this is the reason why some people are getting carried away, however I dont think people are getting carried away as such, just happy on a close victory without some good players

 

[blacktip-reefy]

To add ammunition to the rotation errors argument

I think you were out of ammunition a long time ago so you are not adding to anything

According to you.
A man who proved without a shadow of a doubt, with in depth analysis, that BK will be a good goal kicker.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

& sharkies all the Way, I will test your analysis here.
during that 15 minute period, who was the player isolated & caught out on numerous occasions?
this person also made quite a few runs more than he would normally.
he was buggered, slow to react & was targeted.

 

[Sharkies all the Way]

I dont know, Vagana maybe? What is your point? Your entire argument concerning the interchange effecting the 3 tries has absolutely no basis when considering the tries were a result of mistackles and poor defense from backs, players who are not interchanged. In another game against a team such as the Roosters where we must interchange players frequently to keep up with the fiter team I would agree with you, but the Knights were on the same level as us if not worse off fitness wise.

 

[millersnose]

interchange effecting the 3 tries has absolutely no basis when considering the tries were a result of mistackles and poor defense from backs, players who are not interchanged.

hmmm

a strong point reefy

one you havent yet addressed

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Actually you are wrong.
One try was not because of the backs at all.
4 breaks that got them into feild postion were not the fault of the backs.
It was simply perfect play by kidley in identifying our most tired players & targetting them & isolating them.
That is how they got the easy feild position.
That is how they kept the ball from us.
That is how the kept possession flow to their advantage.
That is why their intensity lifted.

You are looking at micro-causality i.e. interchange players immediate effect on the play.
I am looking at macro - causality i.e. tired players in the team & effects on the defensive line.

FYI
The player in question was Nuttley.
I am not bagging him because he was going like mad, but he was caught out by Kidley who targetted him numerous times. It was his miss on Kidley that lead to M Gidleys try.
Then there was the grubber down the side where Kidley got on the outside of Nutts for space. Amongst others.

 

[Macca]

Correct me if I am wrong but Nutley is an 80 minute player. Are we to assume that Raper is at fault because he did what he does every week and left Nutley on?

Does Nutley still play 80 mins every week, I am not certain.

 

[PJ]

Actually from watching it again today Nutley (I'm not even sure it was Nutley) tackled Kidley.

If Kent had have stayed on his man then he would have been able to stop M Gidley as well, or even the pass being thrown.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Yes you are right PJ
But Nutts was slow to react which saw Kidley about to break the hole.
Nutters got him in the end, with a poor on the line tackle that allowed him to offload to brother.
I thought Kent made the right choice, but should have just gone for the ball.
Not all Nutts fault.
if anything, just great play by kidley by targetting him.
I also think he was involved in the 2 previous tackles.

 

[Macca]

Correct me if I am wrong but Nutley is an 80 minute player. Are we to assume that Raper is at fault because he did what he does every week and left Nutley on?

Does Nutley still play 80 mins every week, I am not certain.

No answer Reefy?

 

[PJ]

For mine Nutley had him covered and Kent should have had faith.

In addition if Nutley had have missed Simmons could have had a shot on Kidley.

Happened too fast to say anyone was fully at fault but you give a quality player like Kidley that much ball on your line and he'll break you

 

[blacktip-reefy]

I think Kidley would have gotten over the line.
he was damn near over the line when he passed it.

 

[PJ]

He was at least 2 metres short and falling

 

[Macca]

Still no answer. Am I on ignore?

 

[Sharkies all the Way]

Actually you are wrong.
One try was not because of the backs at all.
4 breaks that got them into feild postion were not the fault of the backs.
It was simply perfect play by kidley in identifying our most tired players & targetting them & isolating them.
That is how they got the easy feild position.
That is how they kept the ball from us.
That is how the kept possession flow to their advantage.
That is why their intensity lifted.

You are looking at micro-causality i.e. interchange players immediate effect on the play.
I am looking at macro - causality i.e. tired players in the team & effects on the defensive line.

FYI
The player in question was Nuttley.
I am not bagging him because he was going like mad, but he was caught out by Kidley who targetted him numerous times. It was his miss on Kidley that lead to M Gidleys try.
Then there was the grubber down the side where Kidley got on the outside of Nutts for space. Amongst others.

From this I take it you admit 2 of the 3 tries were due to backs, the third, you suggest was due to Nutley. However, your problem with this, as already suggested, is that he plays 80 minutes. So this ALSO has nothing to do with the interchange along with the other 2 tries which resulted from the backs. In addition to this, M.Gidleys try may also be seen to be a simply error in not locking down the player, his arms were free and he was able to offload, this is a error which occurs tired or not.

tired players in the team & effects on the defensive line.

I dont think this effected the line at all, the tries were from targetting our players out wide, they did not target 'tired' interchangeable players at all.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

As you didnt understant basic statistic principals in the Kimmorley kicking thread, you are again not understanding the principals of causality & effect.

No tries were due to the backs.
No tries were due to Nuttley or any other forwards.
The tries were a result of tiredness, isolation/targetting & very good play by Kidley.
You'll understand one day.

 

[Sharkies all the Way]

Your right :lol:

 

[Sharkies all the Way]

Put it like this, do you think if we had utilised the 3 interchanges that things would have been different? I doubt it very much.

No tries were due to the backs.

How so? The main example of a try as a result of backs for me was the 109m try. Did you expect forwards to be in the kick chase? Did you expect once they got away Props to run them down? This one example out of the three shows how the backs were to blame if anyone.

Your argument is floored, I do understand where you are coming from but I disagree that it had a major impact on the tries.