Are we lacking...

[T-BONE MCGRAW]

Does anyone think we may just be lacking a hard nosed defensive enforcer to complete our team. I know Fuifui plays with a lot of aggression especially in his runs but due to his judicary problems he seems to have been told to tone down his defence. I love the fact that Piggy plays with a lot of emotion and regularly flies the flag and PJ hits very hard in defence for a small guy but I just think we are missing a player that other teams really fear. Someone who smashes in defence and other teams are scared to run at. The guy that immediately comes to mind is Luke O'Donnell but even someone like a Carl Webb, Mark O'Meley or Rueben Wiki in his prime. It is my opinion that no other teams really fear our forward pack especially the starting pack. We are very good at what we do well in that workman like mannner and our offloading this year has improved tremendously but we really lack aggression especially in defence.

I bring this point up because I believe we have been roughed up in quite a few games this year and I believe sides now see this as a way to beat us. As referees are doing nothing about the roughhouse tactics against us we may have to start taking matters into our hands (within reason) and try and fight fire with fire. It is all about controlled aggression especially in defence. The only guy we currently have that springs to my mind is Richard Fa'aoso (any others??) and it may be too late to buy someone for next year. We need to try and somehow get a bit tougher, something like the bulldogs mentality. We may hate the Bulldogs style but in rugby league nice guys don't win and at the moment we are too nice.

Sorry about the rant but I had to get it off my chest.

 

[Pedro Collins]

I agree with you in that there are certain teams through agression and dominance in the tackle are getting on top of teams. At the moment a lot seems to be being let go in the initial impact and what is going on, on the ground. Wrestling and holding on the ground is now an integral part of teams game plans.

There is however a fine line as penalties are extremely costly and the team at the moment I look at who try and assert this physicality are the Panthers and they are getting killed in the penalties and ultimately losing some games that they look better in.

 

[fanool]

Firstly T-Bone - Contratulations on your user name. I think it is the best I have come accross. I'm thinking that MAHONEY is a similar surname but can't think of an appropriate Seppo first name. I am very jealous. One day I will STEAL IT from you and use it on another forum. Fortunately I cannot think of a Forum (other than this one) worthy enough for the use of the name T-Bone. You are a genius.

As for your post. Yes in a perfect world a NASTY piece of defensive work on our books would be just tops. But I think that in this current market the players you have specified are paid too much. And when they get injured their teams really notice it.

I am keen to see what happens with a couple of our reggies (Paulo for one).

When our pack goes well they have been belting others. So do our backs. Our boys gave it to both the Cowboys and the Dogs and the Tigers. We've had a couple of emarrissing games like last weekend. But I think we are a pretty physical when we are on our game. It would be a shame to let go a couple of the younger (or older) back rowers for the likes of a MOM or O'Dummell.

 

[eloquentEEL]

I've seen almost all of our forwards pull off the big "enforcer" hits at various times in the last few years, but very few and far between. It's the wingers and centres that are regularly putting on the big hits, making the opposition outside men scared to run it out wide.

Maybe it's part of the gameplan. Allow me to put 2 and 2 together to get 5:

What the above 2 factors suggest is that maybe we want the opposition to aim it through the middle so that we can compress our defence.

 

[dazeely]

we looked pretty tough against the warriors and tigers.

toughness isn't helping the dogs at the moment.

 

[T-BONE MCGRAW]

Fanool, thanks for the wrap on the name. It did take a few beers to come up with that name. Not sure if you are taking the p*ss on the use of caps lock but if you are that was an accident that I can't seem to fix

I tend to agree on the points you have mentioned but it is my opinion we will not do too much in the big games (like finals) without a player the ilk I have mentioned. We have too many blokes that play similar roles in the Hindy's, Robbo, Wags and even Cayless. We don't that x-factor type player that other teams fear. Most other sides that are successfull have at least one intimidator and in most cases more than one. The only guys that come close for us are Moimoi (has had to tone down style due to risk), Fa'aoso (can not amke first grade) Riddell (not really intimidating but very passionate) and Marsh (small guy but hits hard in defence). To complete our team we need to find an intimidator or purchase one. I do have some hopes for the likes of Paulo and Hauraki to take this role

 

[fanool]

Such a name demands the use of the Caps Lock.

 

[T-BONE MCGRAW]

we looked pretty tough against the warriors and tigers.

toughness isn't helping the dogs at the moment.

I actually beg to differ. We didn't look terribbly tough against either of these teams We played extremely well and everything clicked against the Tigers and we historically do well against them as they do not try to out muscle us. Watch for that to change in the future if they are at all well coached. The warriors are a shot team at the moment and were disgraceful against us. However watch the game again, especailly the last 10 mins and they roughed us up completely with no fear of retribution. Natahan Fien put on at least 2 very high tackles but because our players didn't didn't lie down and refs refuse to look for high shots anymore they went unchecked.

As for your second point why have we got a recent bad record against the Dogs, even when they are not playing well, and what is their finals record over the last 20 years. Even though I hate the dogs you have to admire their record in the games that count

 

[dazeely]

T-bone I understand what your saying and at times tend to agree. Hopefully Hauraki can fill that roll because Faasso doesn't have the package to play 1st grade imo.

But I walked away from the NZ & Tigers thinking where did some of that controlled aggression come from. They have it in them but consistency is the problem. I put it down to the defence moving up and getting in the oppositions face. They were slow to move last week and had no chance to dominate. When we move up at pace we give the opposition less time to wind up and think basically.

 

[carson]

Bring back Peter Johnston!

 

[Bigfella]

I put it down to the defence moving up and getting in the oppositions face. They were slow to move last week and had no chance to dominate.

I think that is the real point.

An individual could not have helped our defence on Saturday, or the other game we got a touch up, Round 1 v the Warriors.

What beat us was a combination of line speed, enthusiasm, play the ball speed, dominance of the ruck.

In fact, that is pretty much what decides virtually every game in the NRL. In our case, it does appear that the defensive style being implemented tends to hold back; and if we get dominated in the ruck and the opposition play up tempo, we are going to get a touch up possibly even more than other clubs.

Having individual hit men is less important than the entire team working together in defence. We have the individuals to put on big hits anyway.

We lost on Sat and in round 1 because our collective attitude was poor. They are the only 2 times it has happened so I don't see it as a massive problem at this stage, considering all the adjustments we have had to make.

I think it is the role of the senior players and coaching staff to ensure it doesn't happen too often, or at all.

 

[dazeely]

I als noticed our outside backs were standing back. Of late they have been moving up in a line and compressing in so the opposition are directed back into the forwards. This also helped our forwards as they didn't need to slide to cater which was a major problem against the raiders. For the first week in a long time the likes of Caylo was caught out and struggled to laterally move to cover the holes. Run at or towards him and he will sit them on their arse.

 

[Suitman]

I think that is the real point.

An individual could not have helped our defence on Saturday, or the other game we got a touch up, Round 1 v the Warriors.

What beat us was a combination of line speed, enthusiasm, play the ball speed, dominance of the ruck.

In fact, that is pretty much what decides virtually every game in the NRL. In our case, it does appear that the defensive style being implemented tends to hold back; and if we get dominated in the ruck and the opposition play up tempo, we are going to get a touch up possibly even more than other clubs.

I think also that we are one of the poorest clubs in the art of slowing down the playing the ball, which would ultimately give our defensive line more time to reset.

Suity

 

[dazeely]

I think also that we are one of the poorest clubs in the art of slowing down the playing the ball, which would ultimately give our defensive line more time to reset.

Suity

I tend to agree. If another team is on a roll the coach or senior players need to take control and try to change the speed of the game. I hate to say it but buy some time, stay down for an injury, put on the biff, ask the ref questions.

At no stage am I saying they are not making an effort but just don't sit there and let the rot continue.

 

[The Engineers Room]

The issue is dominant tackles

A few years back we were last in the dominant tackles count for some part of the season. We simply don't get aggressive enough at times. It has been better in the last season and a half but the issue is aggression and dominance in tackles.

 

[Eelementary]

I actually beg to differ. We didn't look terribbly tough against either of these teams We played extremely well and everything clicked against the Tigers and we historically do well against them as they do not try to out muscle us. Watch for that to change in the future if they are at all well coached. The warriors are a shot team at the moment and were disgraceful against us. However watch the game again, especailly the last 10 mins and they roughed us up completely with no fear of retribution. Natahan Fien put on at least 2 very high tackles but because our players didn't didn't lie down and refs refuse to look for high shots anymore they went unchecked.

As for your second point why have we got a recent bad record against the Dogs, even when they are not playing well, and what is their finals record over the last 20 years. Even though I hate the dogs you have to admire their record in the games that count

The match was done and dusted with 10 minutes to go. For the opening 70 minutes, our forwards smashed them out of the game, both in attack and defence.

Against the Tigers, our forwards dominated the match - they dictated the tempo of the game and they toyed with their defense using offloads at will.

This obssession with having big-hitting defenders will not really get you anywhere - who would you say is Melbourne's biggest hitter? I see their pack and I don't see a hitman. I see guys who make metres and guys who are able to shut down everything with their agility, but no real hitmen. And yet Melbourne are leading the competition.

 

[Eelementary]

I think that is the real point.

An individual could not have helped our defence on Saturday, or the other game we got a touch up, Round 1 v the Warriors.

What beat us was a combination of line speed, enthusiasm, play the ball speed, dominance of the ruck.

In fact, that is pretty much what decides virtually every game in the NRL. In our case, it does appear that the defensive style being implemented tends to hold back; and if we get dominated in the ruck and the opposition play up tempo, we are going to get a touch up possibly even more than other clubs.

Having individual hit men is less important than the entire team working together in defence. We have the individuals to put on big hits anyway.

We lost on Sat and in round 1 because our collective attitude was poor. They are the only 2 times it has happened so I don't see it as a massive problem at this stage, considering all the adjustments we have had to make.

I think it is the role of the senior players and coaching staff to ensure it doesn't happen too often, or at all.

So what happened against Souths, then?

 

[yy_cheng]

ACtually, Hindy is really really good at slowing the play the ball. Watch him closely. He holds them down for a long time and is usually the last off. And I think due to his reputation, he doesn't get pinched that often.

However, since he's not that close to the ruck as he used to be, you don't see the slower play the balls.

Furthermore, Hindy hits quite hard. You very rarely see hindy going backwards.


The hitman that we do have besides Faaso is Zeb. He goes for it but usually misses and then looks bad. He has the aggression but he doesn't have the experience in picking when to hit and when to tackle.

Against the raiders, we should've compressed our defense.

 

[T-BONE MCGRAW]

This obssession with having big-hitting defenders will not really get you anywhere - who would you say is Melbourne's biggest hitter? I see their pack and I don't see a hitman. I see guys who make metres and guys who are able to shut down everything with their agility, but no real hitmen. And yet Melbourne are leading the competition.

Dallas Johnson. One of the best hitters in the League. For aggression they also have at various times Michael Crocker, Ben Cross, Brett White and Kaufusi to name a few. Melbourne are the perfect example of a great blend of aggression and skill in a forward pack and that is why they are leading the comp and close to good things for the comp this year. They have also now got Matt Rua who is a great hitter in defence

 

[Bigfella]

So what happened against Souths, then?

We matched their line speed, dominated the ruck for significant periods of time, started brilliantly, but failed to do enough in attack.

Our go forward was poor, our kicking game sucked, and when we had field position and possession we scored no points.

We were in that game for a long period of time but didn't play enough footy at them.

Yes, they ran away with it in the end, but we had our opportunities to win the game.

I would contrast it to the Warriors and the Canberra games where we were blown off the park and never competed.

Our attitude in that game was willing, and our defense was good, for long periods (not for the full 80 certainly).

I reckon our inability to score points was more costly in that game than our defence, not unlike the Canterbury game.