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!
If he was really forcing the defence to make mistakes he would have more assists. Drown's best contribution in the halves is that he can dig in and get a quick play-the-ball, allowing Moses and Gutherson to play off the back of that.
If scrappy performances in round one are good enough for the Roosters and Storm they're good enough for us. At least we won, and against a finalist from last year as well. The Titans could turn out to be a top six team or better this year.
I referenced tries to make a point, but I was referring to our overall attack. It went limp once JA came on. Yes games change and it’s useful to look at what happened that may have contributed to that change. JA coming on and shifting Drown to centre was a pretty significant moment when you consider our attack was on fire up until that point.
Our shift plays rely on Gutho throwing the money ball on the left as he’s probably the best ballplaying fullback in the comp, so that’s why he gets so many assists and Drowns are down (too far down for my liking). As you know, I’m not Drown’s biggest fan as a half but he has impressed me so far this year in the games I’ve seen. He’s digging in to the line and straightening up the attack before shifting out and creating space on the edges. That’s what the good halves do.
The way they were used at 6 doesn't suit modern structures, either in attack or defence. It's why halves just aren't that heavy these days. They need mobility in attack and defence rather than just being a threat to run and pass.
Stats require context, and most of you merkins lack it.
We absolutely lack cool heads in our leadership group. On the upside they are tough and put in the effort. They just have a tendency to switch off and play dumb when the pressure is off.
That 2017 side overachieved. This year's team is the best chance since 2005. The '09 team snuck into that grand final from 8th place, and missed the finals either side of the grand final year. They weren't genuine contenders.
What's that got to do with the fact that he didn't have a winger in front of him? He was able to challenge the fullback because we worked an overlap, not because his opposing winger didn't "StAy On YoUr MaN fFs!!1" It was the same with the tries they scored on our right edge. The difference was we didn't have a fullback coming across in cover.
There was f**k all kick pressure in the eighties. In fact there was f**k all sustained defensive intensity at all prior to about 2002. Quick play-the-balls were easy to come by on any tackle. Rugby league during Kenny's era looked like NRLW with more punching.
I believe the third defender is also very important from a decision making point of view.
How involved was Drown in our tries? Apart from the one where he toed ahead a kick his best attacking involvement was a quick play-the-ball. Go and watch the highlights again:
Are they showing that on Foxtel? I'd sign up...
It also coincided with our lead stretching beyond two tries. We put the cue in the rack and the Titans smelled blood. The evidence of this was our defensive collapse, most visibly on the opposite side of the field from where Arthur was defending.
See above. Russell left the field right after the score blew out. The change in our defensive intensity reflects something bigger than just Jake Arthur stifling our attack. I'm sure our attack would have struggled even if Russell had stayed on the field because we had obviously clocked off. The only reason you wouldn't notice this is because you wanted to blame a single player. Or you noticed our drop in intensity and blamed that on Arthur as well.
It is what the good halves do but even Nathan Cleary sometimes hits the short runner. He doesn't just pass it out the back or go for the quick play-the-ball.
I believe all my shit. The point is I don't believe any of it strongly. There are always multiple ways to interpret data and even to interpret what you see with your own eyes. As an easy-to-understand (I hope) example, I thought we would win, but thought the Titans were a good enough chance that I had $20 on them. After the game I haven't changed my mind. The Titans were a good chance and $3 was good value for them even though they lost. Some of the smooth brains around here would say that any amount was a poor price for the Titans because they ended up losing.
Five, according to Champion Data: https://mc.championdata.com/nrl/
