Time To Stop The Mind Game Changes Supercoach

[roopy]

I think Smith gave us a sh*t game plan last week, but i reckon we have won five or six games in the last two years because of clever game plans, and maybe this was the first where he really gave us an ordinary plan, but we probably would have lost anyway.
Who else but Smith would have even thought to have Kidley playing two positions?

 

[antonius]

Smith is no different now from when the Knights beat his "Unbeatable" Eels side in 2001. He's too smart for his own good. All the stuff he's doing to the side now he's done for years with other teams.

 

[BG]

I think Smith gave us a sh*t game plan last week, but i reckon we have won five or six games in the last two years because of clever game plans, and maybe this was the first where he really gave us an ordinary plan, but we probably would have lost anyway.
Who else but Smith would have even thought to have Kidley playing two positions?

At last a sensible perspective. A few things I'd add:

There was only one radical team change against Canberra. Karawana for Dureau. This is the kind of thing Smith does in planning against particular opposition. We have to remember that Canberra in Canberra are not a home game against Souths or an out-of-form Parramatta, or the Titans without Prince and Rogers. Smith clearly wasn't confident that we had producing enough to prevail in the step up in class, and in that he may have been right. As things turned out, Karawana didn't go well and has subsequently been dropped so we can put that down as a mistake.

The other changes were hardly radical. The fact that Wicks is Smith's pet project is well-known, and while unpopular, every coach will have their own idiosyncratic ideas. It wasn't as if Wicks being selected over other in-from forwards suddenly came out of left field.

Bringing Cross and Royal straight back was something most coaches would do. I thought Cross went fine. Royal seemed underdone. But I expect he must have trained OK. The fact we don't seem keen to sign him hardly suggests any coaching bias.

It probably wasn't one of Smith's best coaching efforts but labelling it as "overcoaching" and "radical" and so forth I find ridiculous. Most of the changes were a result of players coming back from injury. Putting them back in straight away--whether right or wrong--is a more conservative approach than otherwise. Even dropping Dureau wasn't a total surprise. Smith has obviously had some qualms about him all year, especially when we have had a defence oriented game plan. Again whether his opinion may be awry on that is a different issue to whether he is chopping and changing for the sake of it. Smith obviously has his reasons for the way he rates some of our players and what he thinks is required to beat particular opposition. Within that context there was nothing unusual about Sunday, and as Roops points out there have been other occasions where Smith's tactics have been a decisive factor in getting a victory.

 

[BG]

Smith is no different now from when the Knights beat his "Unbeatable" Eels side in 2001. He's too smart for his own good. All the stuff he's doing to the side now he's done for years with other teams.

And he's had almost unmatched success with it.

The only black mark on his resume are the losses in grand finals and I don't remember him ever doing anything surprising with team selection or so forth in one of those. Perhaps that was the problem. :sarcasm:

Seriously though, even a minor premiership in the next year or two would be a pretty fast step up in the post-Johns era. But I think Smith can still get the major prize. The 2001 Knights with Johns in the team were a considerably better side than the Eels imho, and if he'd played every game they probably wouldn't have won the minor premiership either.

 

[antonius]

At last a sensible perspective. A few things I'd add:

There was only one radical team change against Canberra. Karawana for Dureau. This is the kind of thing Smith does in planning against particular opposition. We have to remember that Canberra in Canberra are not a home game against Souths or an out-of-form Parramatta, or the Titans without Prince and Rogers. Smith clearly wasn't confident that we had producing enough to prevail in the step up in class, and in that he may have been right. As things turned out, Karawana didn't go well and has subsequently been dropped so we can put that down as a mistake.

The other changes were hardly radical. The fact that Wicks is Smith's pet project is well-known, and while unpopular, every coach will have their own idiosyncratic ideas. It wasn't as if Wicks being selected over other in-from forwards suddenly came out of left field.

Bringing Cross and Royal straight back was something most coaches would do. I thought Cross went fine. Royal seemed underdone. But I expect he must have trained OK. The fact we don't seem keen to sign him hardly suggests any coaching bias.

It probably wasn't one of Smith's best coaching efforts but labelling it as "overcoaching" and "radical" and so forth I find ridiculous. Most of the changes were a result of players coming back from injury. Putting them back in straight away--whether right or wrong--is a more conservative approach than otherwise. Even dropping Dureau wasn't a total surprise. Smith has obviously had some qualms about him all year, especially when we have had a defence oriented game plan. Again whether his opinion may be awry on that is a different issue to whether he is chopping and changing for the sake of it. Smith obviously has his reasons for the way he rates some of our players and what he thinks is required to beat particular opposition. Within that context there was nothing unusual about Sunday, and as Roops points out there have been other occasions where Smith's tactics have been a decisive factor in getting a victory.

Yep bringing both them back might be something most coaches would do, but add Wicks in the mix and you have two reasonable players back from injury, and one dead set do nothing overweight nuffy also back from injury and that is too much to carry, even an "Ordinary" Matt White would have to wonder what's going on.

 

[Johns Magic]

Maybe Smith already knew White was going to the Titans

 

[antonius]

Maybe Smith already knew White was going to the Titans

So what? you pick your best side, that don't include Wicks IMO.

 

[Johns Magic]

So what? you pick your best side, that don't include Wicks IMO.

I wouldn't pick a player the calibre of White if he was leaving over a bloke who would be here next year.

A coach has to have a view to the future.

 

[antonius]

I wouldn't pick a player the calibre of White if he was leaving over a bloke who would be here next year.

A coach has to have a view to the future.

Well I don't believe Danny Wicks is our future, regardless you pick the best available side, and like I said previously....

 

[Johns Magic]

Well I don't believe Danny Wicks is our future, regardless you pick the best available side, and like I said previously....

Well Smith obviously does. And I still think he could be. And it's quite obvious now that White won't be.

 

[antonius]

Well Smith obviously does. And I still think he could be. And it's quite obvious now that White won't be.

Well good oh for Smith because anyone who rates Wicks over White at this stage and given our predicament re finals has rocks in their head, In other words given Whites efforts in his last few games, if you rate Wicks above him then you don't know what you're on about. We need wins from here on in, Pick your best side. Wicks is behind White and Taufua by miles.

 

[BG]

Antonius,

I feel your horror at Wicks's continued selection is making you muddle a few different issues together.

There is no doubt Smith plays mind games with his players to keep them on their toes in the week-to-week grind of the NRL. And it has been remarkably effective, netting years of finals appearances and two minor premierships. He hasn't snatched the ulimate prize of course, but as far as I'm aware he has never carried on the team chopping into the finals so I don't see how it's relevant.

Smith has also often come under fire for being too "cute" with his tactics. But where Eels fans used to have a go at him in this regard was over things analagous to playing Gids in two positions. Or, to be honest, moving him to fullback in the first place--an idea which I recall you like a few others were vehemently opposed to prior to last season.

The Wicks issue reminds me more of Smith signing Moimoi--over which he copped even more flak from Eels fans. Of course he had the last laugh on that one. And he mightn't with Wicks. But either way I think it's misleading to bundle it in with the "overcoaching" and "mind-game" labels which are the cheap shots the people in the media who don't like Smith usually volley at him.

With Wicks he just has an opinion about a player's ability to realise his potential that not a lot of other people share. Be he proven right or wrong it is a different issue from the other stuff.

 

[antonius]

Antonius,

I feel your horror at Wicks's continued selection is making you muddle a few different issues together.

There is no doubt Smith plays mind games with his players to keep them on their toes in the week-to-week grind of the NRL. And it has been remarkably effective, netting years of finals appearances and two minor premierships. He hasn't snatched the ulimate prize of course, but as far as I'm aware he has never carried on the team chopping into the finals so I don't see how it's relevant.

Smith has also often come under fire for being too "cute" with his tactics. But where Eels fans used to have a go at him in this regard was over things like playing Gids in two positions. Or, to be honest, moving him to fullback in the first place--which I recall you like a few others were vehemently against.

The Wicks issue reminds me more of Smith signing Moimoi over which he copped even more flak from Eels fans. Of course he had the last laugh on that one. He mightn't with Wicks. But either way I think it's misleading to bundle it in with the "overcoaching" and "mind-game" labels which are the cheap shots the people in the media who don't like Smith usually volley at him.

With Wicks he just has an opinion about a player's ability to realise his potential that not a lot of other people share. Be he proven right or wrong it is a different issue from the other stuff.

Muddling issues together is not what this is about. We want to make the eight. Experimenting with protege Wicks ? this isn't the time to do it.
As for playing mind games, that can also have a very negative effect, texting players at all hours of the day and night can become very tiring, even for the most accommodating person.

 

[BG]

Muddling issues together is not what this is about.

It's what this thread has been about.

We want to make the eight.

How is that in doubt? :?

Experimenting with protege Wicks ? this isn't the time to do it.

A reasonable argument. As I said above, this is different from some of the other stuff you were saying.

 

[antonius]

It's what this thread has been about.




How is that in doubt? :?




A reasonable argument. As I said above, this is different from some of the other stuff you were saying.

What other stuff? I'm saying pick the best team available that doesn't include Wicks, Simple. Last week in a game we really needed to win Smith picked three guys coming back from injury All forwards, and one was Wicks. He dropped a guy who'd done the job well in the previous weeks, and was game hardened. You work that out.

 

[Johns Magic]

Well good oh for Smith because anyone who rates Wicks over White at this stage and given our predicament re finals has rocks in their head, In other words given Whites efforts in his last few games, if you rate Wicks above him then you don't know what you're on about. We need wins from here on in, Pick your best side. Wicks is behind White and Taufua by miles.

You overrate White something massive.

He's looked good against three dogsh*t sides. He was crap against the Sharks in the only tough game he's played in. Particularly in defence. 17 tackles for 6 misses.

He's very slow laterally.

Wicks got shown up on Sunday. But I'm not convinced White wouldn't have been as well.

 

[BG]

What other stuff? I'm saying pick the best team available that doesn't include Wicks, Simple. Last week in a game we really needed to win Smith picked three guys coming back from injury All forwards, and one was Wicks. He dropped a guy who'd done the job well in the previous weeks, and was game hardened. You work that out.

Previously you were arguing that the team selections and tactics this weak were indicative of why Smith had lost grand finals and so forth. However, he has traditionally been very stable with his team selections during finals series.


Now you're making it simple.:thumb

 

[antonius]

You overrate White something massive.

He's looked good against three dogsh*t sides. He was crap against the Sharks in the only tough game he's played in. Particularly in defence. 17 tackles for 6 misses.

He's very slow laterally.

Wicks got shown up on Sunday. But I'm not convinced White wouldn't have been as well.

JM, you are dead set kidding if you believe that, White is miles in front of Wicks, if White is slow laterally, ask your mate Cross how slow Wicks is laterally, he'd know all about that after Sunday.

 

[antonius]

Previously you were arguing that the team selections and tactics this weak were indicative of why Smith had lost grand finals and so forth. However, he has traditionally been very stable with his team selections during finals series.


Now you're making it simple.:thumb

No I said Why he'd "never won a premiership" I used 2001 as an example, but generally Smith has chopped and changed teams throughout seasons, in 2001 he even handed over the coaching reins to his deputy in case he was ill during the finals series!!!! Like I said he over does it, in many areas, last week was just another example.

 

[BG]

JM, you are dead set kidding if you believe that, White is miles in front of Wicks, if White is slow laterally, ask your mate Cross how slow Wicks is laterally, he'd know all about that after Sunday.

I don't claim enough technical knowledge to know if he was at fault, but I did notice when watching the replay of the second half against the Titans that on at least two occasions on which they made clean breaks against us White seemed poorly positioned and they ran through a gap next to him. Our scramble was good enough to cover on those occasions; it might not have been against superior opposition.