Should Daniel Anderson be our coach in 2011?

[lewiscook]

This is exactly what hurts me most.

Me too, i feel angry but once thinking about the whole situation and whats best for Parra i think DA much to my unhappiness is a dead man walking. . .

 

[Avenger]

I cannot see Mortimer surviving if Ando leaves. To a small extent his persistence with him at 7 could have contributed to his undoing.

If the Kearney rumour is true I wonder if Caylo was consulted about his thoughts ? It would be obvious imho seeing that Caylo has been coached by him on a national level.

 

[Gronk]

So they'll pay out the coach leading into an election ? Won't happen even if it should happen.

 

[Eels Dude]

That's how I see it.

He should've just built on that streak we had last year.

He could've done what Ricky did at the roosters with that awesome defense but in our case awesome attack.

That style would run lots of teams ragged and tired.

The problem is that that style of football is hard to produce on a consistent basis. We had a golden run last year and momentum and confidence played a massive part in making the grand final. But relying on an attacking style of second phase play is always risky because it is completely unstructured and impossible to do on a consistent basis successfully. We attempted this style again but that resulted us in not being able to play for 80 minutes all season. We would score a great try, but on the very next set an offload would go to ground or a pass end up over the sideline. That's how it goes if you decide to play low percentage football.

 

[Avenger]

So they'll pay out the coach leading into an election ? Won't happen even if it should happen.

Election is in April. If we win most of our games prior to it people will forgive and forget.

 

[CrazyEel]

So they'll pay out the coach leading into an election ? Won't happen even if it should happen.

Yeah, that's pretty much my thoughts on it as well. I do think DA has brought all this scrutiny on himself by failing to deliver results but doubt the board will act prior to an election.

Unless he wins the GF next year he has no chance of renewing his contract so his time at the eels is still very limited IMO.

 

[Avenger]

The problem is that that style of football is hard to produce on a consistent basis. We had a golden run last year and momentum and confidence played a massive part in making the grand final. But relying on an attacking style of second phase play is always risky because it is completely unstructured and impossible to do on a consistent basis successfully. We attempted this style again but that resulted us in not being able to play for 80 minutes all season. We would score a great try, but on the very next set an offload would go to ground or a pass end up over the sideline. That's how it goes if you decide to play low percentage football.

No sh*t. ;-)

http://www.leagueunlimited.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365951

 

[yy_cheng]

The problem is that that style of football is hard to produce on a consistent basis. We had a golden run last year and momentum and confidence played a massive part in making the grand final. But relying on an attacking style of second phase play is always risky because it is completely unstructured and impossible to do on a consistent basis successfully. We attempted this style again but that resulted us in not being able to play for 80 minutes all season. We would score a great try, but on the very next set an offload would go to ground or a pass end up over the sideline. That's how it goes if you decide to play low percentage football.

I don't agree.

At the end we played willy nilly. Threw the pass and hoped.

That's why I said DA had to grow and improve from last year. If we were super fit, we could've done it.

Control the passes with great support. We went alot of times without support.

Forwards following forwards.

Mortimer, Robbo and Burt should have been assigned just to follow the forwards everywhere. In Mortz case, not to ball play but to follow the forwards. It is his strength. Make use of it.


I reckon some of Canberra, Tigers and Panthers gameplay is taking what we did last year and integrated it into their original style.

We went 360 and pinned our hopes on 5/8ths who have less than 12 months game time and a honest halfback who has taken years to get a 1st grade spot also for less than 12 months experience.

 

[Eels Dude]

I don't agree.

At the end we played willy nilly. Threw the pass and hoped.

That's why I said DA had to grow and improve from last year. If we were super fit, we could've done it.

Control the passes with great support. We went alot of times without support.

Forwards following forwards.

Mortimer, Robbo and Burt should have been assigned just to follow the forwards everywhere. In Mortz case, not to ball play but to follow the forwards. It is his strength. Make use of it.

To a point. But a lot of the time passes went to ground not because there was no support play but because the players were trying to offload too much. Mateo looks like offloading the ball every single he gets it, and a lot of the time with his loose carries they end either being dropped, passed forward, or thrown at someone's feet. Inu was the same, he was always trying to offload the ball, especially on kick returns and that is a massive risk when you're inside you're own 20 because if it doesn't come off, which often it didn't, you're giving the opposition a full set of six inside your own 20. Support play is great and was often lacking, but at the same time the reason the style didn't work was because second phase play is always going to result in a lot of dropped balls and turnovers as a result.

I really don't think our style of play changed much from last year, it was the execution that was lacking and that's why relying on second phase play is a risky thing to do because it's a style which is very difficult to execute on a consistent basis.

 

[fish eel]

So they'll pay out the coach leading into an election ? Won't happen even if it should happen.

Its funny Gronk, because there was a Rothfield piece a while back where he said they'd sack Anderson if we missed the finals to curry favour with members prior to the election :crazy:

 

[Chipmunk]

I reckon some of Canberra, Tigers and Panthers gameplay is taking what we did last year and integrated it into their original style.

Maybe the Tigers to a certain extent is partially what Parra did last year.

Penrith I think started simple...like the Dragons....had some wins and gained in confidence and I think in some ways have become too overconfident in their play and have actually lost what made them successful.

The Raiders play a fairly structured attack, that relies on their big forwards hitting the advantage line and taking the team forward off the back of really quick play the balls. Then they get plenty of bodies in motion when they shift the ball, which stifles the defence and makes them stop and think, which gives the Raiders just enough time that they can then put on plenty of variations/plays with their speed men involved. Then they have the added advantage of when Campese and Dugan hit the accellerator they can go up an extra gear.... In my opinion...this is the game plan Parra should be following....

This ad-lib make-it-up-as-you-go-along for every tackle is just bollocks and will get you knowhere in the long run, once your opposition works out that is all your about (which is what I feel our opponens worked out pretty quick!)

 

[Gronk]

Its funny Gronk, because there was a Rothfield piece a while back where he said they'd sack Anderson if we missed the finals to curry favour with members prior to the election :crazy:

There will be a backlash of KRudd in QLD proportions.

 

[bartman]

That being said, I would be disappointed if he didnt see out his contract, however IF that was to happen, I certainly wouldnt rail against the board.

I would. I think sacking coaches while they are under contract is not on, and leads our future down a very slippery slope imo.

Not a good sign to send to the next potential coach and will reduce willing candidates, and we'll just end up stuck with an absolutely f**ked coach who can't get any other job like Sticky....

 

[boxhead]

The problem is that Ossie seems to think he knows everything, i.e. if we sign up Sticky it will be because Ossie says "I want him, he is my friend".
:sarcasm:

 

[yy_cheng]

I really don't think our style of play changed much from last year, .

We were watching different teams then.

Only the Melbourne game were we playing like last year and the 3 game winning streak.

When we got to the point we had to win every game, we were hoping to play like last year but without control.


What I am trying to say is not play exactly like last year but DA should've used that as a base to build on and IMPROVE.

Inside our own 40, I would not really second phase considering our forwards were making good metres for once. i.e. we didn't struggle to get out of our 40.

But we couldn't kick for peanuts.

Why couldn't Hayne and Burt taken over the long range kicking?

Why give it to the pop gun kickers who kick down the fullback's throat?

DA got it wrong because he wasn't playing to the team's strengths but trying to play structured and trying to manufacture.

OUr best long kickers are Hayne, Burt, INU (to an extent). When the forwards have made it to the 40, let one of these guys kick it.

Our best backer uppers are Mortz, Robbo, KK, let them back up and follow the forwards.

On danger man is Feleti. Ask him to Ruck out in our own 40, which he actually does a good job as he usually does make 10m, and let him have his way in the opposition 30. Instead, Feleti went from a danger man in the opposition 30 (from years prior) to a non-existent this year. Only at the end when he was given the license to throw, he looked dangerous.

What DA should've done was take each individuals strengths and used them at the appropriate times irrespective of what position he plays.

I recall John Muggleton used to do clearing kicks because he had a good boot on him and he was a 2nd rower. Is it that hard to ask Burt to do clearing kicks and have Mortz chase?

It means a strength kicker and a strength chaser rather than a crap kicker and a so so chaser.

He went about it the wrong way our DA with the cattle he had.

 

[yy_cheng]

I would. I think sacking coaches while they are under contract is not on, and leads our future down a very slippery slope imo.

Not a good sign to send to the next potential coach and will reduce willing candidates, and we'll just end up stuck with an absolutely f**ked coach who can't get any other job like Sticky....

So imagine another year with Hagan in 2009. He was on a 3 year deal right and left in the 2nd year.

I don't agree. Any other coach wouldn't give a rat's bottom. It's a job and if they have the confidence to back themselves, they will take it.

If you asked Bennett and offered him heaps, he would take it.
Same with Ricky. I reckon same with dumped coaches like Fittler and Jason Taylor. Offer it to them and do you really think they would knock it back?

I think not.

 

[boxhead]

We were watching different teams then.

Only the Melbourne game were we playing like last year and the 3 game winning streak.

When we got to the point we had to win every game, we were hoping to play like last year but without control.


What I am trying to say is not play exactly like last year but DA should've used that as a base to build on and IMPROVE.

Inside our own 40, I would not really second phase considering our forwards were making good metres for once. i.e. we didn't struggle to get out of our 40.

But we couldn't kick for peanuts.

Why couldn't Hayne and Burt taken over the long range kicking?

Why give it to the pop gun kickers who kick down the fullback's throat?

DA got it wrong because he wasn't playing to the team's strengths but trying to play structured and trying to manufacture.

OUr best long kickers are Hayne, Burt, INU (to an extent). When the forwards have made it to the 40, let one of these guys kick it.

Our best backer uppers are Mortz, Robbo, KK, let them back up and follow the forwards.

On danger man is Feleti. Ask him to Ruck out in our own 40, which he actually does a good job as he usually does make 10m, and let him have his way in the opposition 30. Instead, Feleti went from a danger man in the opposition 30 (from years prior) to a non-existent this year. Only at the end when he was given the license to throw, he looked dangerous.

What DA should've done was take each individuals strengths and used them at the appropriate times irrespective of what position he plays.

I recall John Muggleton used to do clearing kicks because he had a good boot on him and he was a 2nd rower. Is it that hard to ask Burt to do clearing kicks and have Mortz chase?

It means a strength kicker and a strength chaser rather than a crap kicker and a so so chaser.

He went about it the wrong way our DA with the cattle he had.

Wholly agree.

 

[Chipmunk]

To a point. But a lot of the time passes went to ground not because there was no support play but because the players were trying to offload too much. Mateo looks like offloading the ball every single he gets it, and a lot of the time with his loose carries they end either being dropped, passed forward, or thrown at someone's feet. Inu was the same, he was always trying to offload the ball, especially on kick returns and that is a massive risk when you're inside you're own 20 because if it doesn't come off, which often it didn't, you're giving the opposition a full set of six inside your own 20. Support play is great and was often lacking, but at the same time the reason the style didn't work was because second phase play is always going to result in a lot of dropped balls and turnovers as a result.

I really don't think our style of play changed much from last year, it was the execution that was lacking and that's why relying on second phase play is a risky thing to do because it's a style which is very difficult to execute on a consistent basis.

I think the difference between our play towards the back end of 2009 and our play this year could be summed up in a few quick points:

1. Last year we had a much better attitude and played with alot more enthusiasm and had a lot more bodies in motion around the ball carrier. We consistently supported the ball carrier and were easily able to create second phase. This year we had no support of any ball cariier...If I was coaching the team and you are any player in the team and you see Mateo take a hit-up or a run, why are you not up his rear-end ready for the offload and into a gap...why when Nathan Cayless takes a hit up inside the opposition 40metres are you not up his clacker ready for the pass and into a gap.....No enthusiam = No second phase = No attacking options = No success in 2010.

2. Our attitude and our enthusiasm was far superior and our defence and the ability to get up and put pressure on the opposition was far greater than at any stage this year

3. Opposition worked out our game plan and our attack options and planned matches against us accordingly....We appear to not have the attitude, enthusiam, structure or game plan to be able to counteract this....

4. We relied on one player last year to create all the attack....This year we pretty much did the same thing....Its easy for an opposition to defend 13 on 1!

Personally I dont think the way we played last year was sustainable long term and we should have come up with a different game plan for 2010....Alot in my opinion comes down to poor attitude, enthusiasm, combined with poor decision and abilities in the 'link' positions (half and hooker), combined with poor coaching relating to the lack of structure and poor game plan.

 

[yy_cheng]

I reckon the team saw that Mortz and his partner in the halves (robbo, kk) were failing but DA couldn't think of an alternative besides persist with them.

So the moral in the other players would've dropped.

I mean if Hayne was to play the playmaker, at least have someone take his place as the fullback. i.e. 2nd ball player ala Burt used to even when Hayne was at 1 or to hang around like Gardner, Mckinnon, slater. I would've given the latter role to Mortz. But because Mortz was ball playing, he didn't do the backing up.

 

[boxhead]

I reckon the team saw that Mortz and his partner in the halves (robbo, kk) were failing but DA couldn't think of an alternative besides persist with them.

So the moral in the other players would've dropped.

I mean if Hayne was to play the playmaker, at least have someone take his place as the fullback. i.e. 2nd ball player ala Burt used to even when Hayne was at 1 or to hang around like Gardner, Mckinnon, slater. I would've given the latter role to Mortz. But because Mortz was ball playing, he didn't do the backing up.

Again, completely agree.