Less disjointed in attack? We had 57% possession, 55% territory, 9-1 penalties, and 41 tackles in the opposition 20. And we scored 3 tries, only 1 through a backline move.
Our attack was awful. Penrith would have put on 60. We missed Ponga and we missed Pearce (and although we haven't had him, we also missed Clifford)
We played with only one of our first string spine, that being the least creative position of the 4. Yes, our attack is still primitive. Yes, Penrith would put 60 on and we score 18. And yes, the forwards were the reason we competed. Does the attack not include what happens in the middle. Look at the Sue and DSaf tries. How many complaints have there been here regarding us going one out in the middle? Did anyone happen to notice JSaf ran as many, if not more decoys as hitups when he came on? Or Barnett continuing to ball play at the line? It may not be adventurous compared to what the Roosters do, but comparable to what we are capable of, there were some positives. Watson is currently offering a dimension we haven’t had previously, and I am keen to see that develop. We did fall back into our usual one out gameplan, which is as frustrating as hell, but at least there is something to work with.
Also, Hoy shouldn’t be condemned so hard for the early ball for the To’a try. If he holds on to draw the defender closer, the odds are Tuala is cramped for room. He had two options. Pass early, or step to straighten the attack before passing. Watch the angles, and draw it out another stride. Was there time for option 2? Maybe, but the try was scored. Were we not frustrated by our centres getting run over the sideline by someone heading east/west?
Plenty of work to be done, and it needs to happen quickly, but bodies in motion was a change. I hope it continues in games where we don’t get the calls. It needs to be standard procedure.