Was it Really Petersen's Fault ?

[MarkInTheStands]

I have to say firstly that I rate Petersen,

Last year he was a machine at finishing a move and getting across the white line. I believe both he and Jamie were equal top try scorers for the year.

Now we don't have the services of one and everyone is calling for Matt to be dropped.

I don't think it was Matt's fault I think he trusted his back up defence, and with good right, the man backing him up is Daniel Wagon.

Wagon in 1999 and beyond has previously been a great defensive player, one of the last lines of defence for Parramatta.

Maybe he was being played out of position but lock and 5/8th in the modern game are virtually the same position.

I think Coach Smith saw that he was having a bad game and bought him off in the 2nd half, which was until poor Ron Prince hurt himself.

I think though that Petersen’s Trust was misplaced and Daniel let himself and the club down.

While Daniel did a number of tackles, the Stats show that he missed 6, and I would say 3 of those lead to tries.

We need to ensure that our players are backing up but further to that are making the big tackles and the small tackles more effective.

With the amount of pressure on the entire side minus the wingers in defence I hope that this week, Wagon is put to a centre position with Maybe Dykes inside him.

Daniels other problem is that he doesn't play like a 5/8th, he didn't make any line breaks, when he runs to the line he makes no confusion in the mind of the opposition, you know he isn't going to pass it, so just hit him.

The one time he passed the ball, we scored a try.
Put him to centre and Petersen to the Wing, you might get a winger that defends and doesn't miss tackles, or Maybe you put both of them in the centres, with Dave V on the Wing or maybe the reverse, V in the centres with Wagon and Petersen on the wing where he is so effective.

That would be one more strike weapons to the bow. So who to bring in, I say Michael Witt. I know he hasn't been setting the world on fire in PL but at halfback, with the option to go to Dykes in 5/8th would give us just one more option.

I think we also need Luke Burt at Full back running onto a ball just before a prop reaches the ad line. This was part of the success of 2001.

Minor Changers and a little reshuffle is what is needed.

Overall we are getting better; I though our goal line defence was good while seldom tested. Dykes is looking good.

Also I would like to ask if anyone has the stats on how much time Armit got compared to the rest of the Props, because competitively his numbers aren't the best.
Armit 12 Tackles, 5 Hit-ups for 39 metres.
Morris 24 T 14 HU 88 M
Vella 24 T 15 HU 105 M
Hindmarsh 41 T 16 HU 117 M
Cayless 39 T 18 HU 124 M
O'Dwyer 21 T 9 HU 59 M
Stapleton 19 T 11 HU 77 M
Peek 29 T 10 HU 72 M
Widders 20 T 14 HU 118 M

Widders is the Only Forward with a line Break. That was one of only 2 in the game.

 

[PB]

if Wagon moved to the Centres and Peterson to a wing (which may not be a bad thing), i still don't think Smith would rush Witt in. I think he still wants that second lock playing 5/8th. Muspratt is his more likely option i think as he can do the hard work, but is ok with the ball in hand also.

 

[Y2Eel]

well if smith needs a second lock playing 5/8 whats wrong with odwyer he is a lock play him 5/8 and push wagon to lock/ centre i want to see odwyer use the ball

 

[Hurriflatch]

I'm assuming you are talking about Petersen rushing out of the line in the lead up to the Raiders 1st try??

He was going for the intercept but failed had he grabbed it he'd have been under the posts at the other end of the ground.

however, I've been one of the biggest defenders of Muzza. but he stuffed up with that play.

If your going for the intercept you need to take it. Yes the double pump by I think it was Woolford got Petersen out of time with the pass but as I said when going for the intercept you must take it if you miss as Muzza did then you need to take at least most of the the blame for what happens.

In saying that though plenty of others stuffed up in Canberra's other tries aswell.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Yeah Woolford's double pump was what screwed Muzza up. Muzz had it all worked out, and was in perfect position for either an intercept or a smash on Choc. Then Woolford double pumped and screwed the whole thing up. Choc had had an extra second to step a bit to the left, and it was all over red rover.

Sometimes when you woll the dice you unfortunately get snake eyes. Could very well have been 6-0 to the Eels.

 

[thedux]

That's why Muzza should be on the wing. With a D being so poor, you don't need blokes rushing out in the middle of the field missing the ball AND the player. You need blokes who are going to number-up and smash the player in front og them which he does very well on the flank. I think Langi should get another shot in the centres, Muzza to wing as Prince will obviously be out.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I'm assuming you are talking about Petersen rushing out of the line in the lead up to the Raiders 1st try??

He was going for the intercept but failed had he grabbed it he'd have been under the posts at the other end of the ground.

however, I've been one of the biggest defenders of Muzza. but he stuffed up with that play.

If your going for the intercept you need to take it. Yes the double pump by I think it was Woolford got Petersen out of time with the pass but as I said when going for the intercept you must take it if you miss as Muzza did then you need to take at least most of the the blame for what happens.

In saying that though plenty of others stuffed up in Canberra's other tries aswell.

Well that effort was just bad. He didn't even get close and just looked like he was totally out of position. I think he was just rushing up but not watching the player.

 

[Hurriflatch]

If it wasn't for the double pump he would have gotten the ball.

 

[Jake the snake]

It was Petersons fault he should of held the line with the rest of the players, he took the gamble and left a Giant hole for Schify.

 

[Hurriflatch]

That is my point. Yes it was Petersen's fault for coming out of the line I didn't deny that however I was just pointing out that had the play come off then Petersen would have been a hero and have scored the 1st try of the match.

 

[Phillips]

if peterson had intercepted that ball, he would have been ran down in no time

 

[Hurriflatch]

shutup Phillips

don't you eve have anything positive to say

I guess if Petersen scores the game winning try in the grand final you'd still find a way to bag him.

 

[Phillips]

yes indeed i probably would

 

[Hurriflatch]

at least you can admit it, thats something I guess

I'd still prefer to see some people give ihim credit when due.

 

[Jake the snake]

Yeah he would of been the hero if it came off, but it didn't and he must wear the shit because it was not a percantage play. Its not entirely Petersons fault anyway the coach has to take some of the blame for playing him outta position. At least this week he is on the Wing wear Peterson is best at.

I would hate to think what he would of done with Mcdougall running at him in the 3/4.

 

[Eelementary]

I agree.

I believe the main issue on the weekend was players not trusting their back-up players. I illustarted the first instance when McLinden made a break. He dummied and got past Hindmarsh and Vaealiki (two very strong defenders, both of who fell for the dummy). To me, it illustrates that they both felt they had to make the right decision (tackle McLinden or tackle the guy who would receive the ball) as they did not trust their back-up men and thought that if they didn't cut off the movement there and then it would lead to a try. Which it did.

Petersen did few things wrong. He was solid in attack and good in defense. Accrediting him with the blunder is a mistake because:

(1) A Raider actually ran into Vella and took him out; maybe Micky V may not have made the tackle on Shif, but he might have been able to grab him or something, but alas could not;

(2) Muzza was trusting his men and trying to put presure on Shif to do something. That is the best way to defend - get in your opponent's face and force him to make a quick decision. There is not much more Muzza could have done. (I also believe tis is a main reason why the Chooks are so good defensively; they get up and in your face very quickly forcing you to make a quick decision and thus putting pressure on you).

(3) We had the opportunity to cut off the movement before or shortly after Shif got the ball but didn't do it.


On the Witt thing, I say bring him in. Sure, maybe he's not playing 100%, but if he's fit I say bring him in. Why?

* His defence can hardly be worse than what we currently have. In fact I think hid D is quite strong. Plus he wouldn't do any worse

* He is another goal kicking option (say Burty is all the way back; he's then have to get there quickly and take the kick; or if Burty runs 60 metres to score a try; if Witt supplied the pass and put Burty into space and watched Burty fly, he'd have enough breath to get to the line and take the kick)

* He is a solid AND creative player. Having Morris, Dykes AND Witt attemtp plays in attack would do us much better.

* He has TALENT. Talent is something that just doesn't disappear.

* He was thrown into the deep end last year under similar circumstances. He was put under enormous pressure and credit to him - I think he handled it brilliantly.

* With Dykes and Morris in awesome form, if he is screwing up all you have to do is either take him off or not give him the organising responsabilities.

Fact is Witt has a better running, kicking and passing game, not to mention vision, than Wagon.

This will allow Wagon to move to lock and Hopkins to the bench as an impact player, if need be.

 

[Pazza]

I totally agree with you on the Witt part Elementary.

 

[Goleel]

Maybe I've been missing something but I don't think Petersen's defense has been that bad, one on one tackling wise. Sure he let that try in this week, but that was just a gamble. He handled Kennedy and Tallis, who both singled him out, very well in the round 2 and 3 games, and I don't care what the NRL stats say, there is no way he's missing that many tackles, and none of them are critical misses like say, Wagon's effort on McLinden for McLinden to make a line break or Vella's pitiful effort on Sonny Bill Williams.

I certainly think he's handled his opposites well, and I don't think MacDougall would have given him any major headaches in defense. Give the guy some credit where its due, he's making well over 20 tackles a game, and apart from his defensive error against Canberra, has his defense conceded a try this year? I don't think it has. Even his efforts against Sonny Bill weren't that bad, he was always getting pushed passed the advantage line, sure, but he would make the tackles.

 

[Eels Dude]

Matt is playing out of position, that's Brian Smith's fault and noone else's. Peterson is back onto the wing this weekend for the first time this season so hopefully we'll see him at his usual finishing best.

 

[Parraren]

Matt is playing out of position, that's Brian Smith's fault and noone else's. Peterson is back onto the wing this weekend for the first time this season so hopefully we'll see him at his usual finishing best.

Yeah interesting listening to the interview with Brian Smith that he mentioned Matt being back in "his preffered position on the wing". Obviously Petersen enjoys playing on the wing so why not playing him there if that's the position he excels in. We have plenty of centres in the club to not have to play Matt out of position.