WiL Round 16 | Knights 38-20 Tigers @ Hunter | Mon 7.00pm

[Pedge1971]

Thanks Pedge, we are pretty pleased with ourselves.

Knights winning is just cream on top frankly.

Mate, we just gad our 2nd a few months back. Hard work but that first smile makes it all worthwhile.. Great stuff!

Sorry all other Knights supporters, soppy me now done....

 

[Bring it home Knights]

the thing about taking the 2 that i feel people under-value somewhat is the fact that you also get the ball back. it annoys me when we're up by 14, but it's really hard to argue against it as a general rule to live by as a football team. take 2 or 3 of them and you have an extra try for no work, you've got the ball back each time, and if you're disciplined you get to kick them back down their end, and try to keep them there all over again. if you're on fire and carving them, you're somewhat likely to make a break and punish them again anyway.

To me the biggest issue with taking the kick is that the team might have a poor set or knock on and then the opposition are in good field position. The best thing about not taking the kick is that a team can build pressure by getting repeat sets and that helps wind the clock down. If only the knights could do the wobbly grubber into the in goal. Its like Mullen never practices it at training...

 

[perverse]

To me the biggest issue with taking the kick is that the team might have a poor set or knock on and then the opposition are in good field position. The best thing about not taking the kick is that a team can build pressure by getting repeat sets and that helps wind the clock down. If only the knights could do the wobbly grubber into the in goal. Its like Mullen never practices it at training...

The good teams don't do that, they complete their next set and continue to tighten the screws. Put simply, you have the mentality of a losing team, not the belief and confidence of a winning one. Stop worrying about what happens if they get it wrong. Even if they do get it wrong, their defence should see them through it. This is the attitude we need to get where we are going - true belief in what we're doing. You don't base your gameplan around contingencies.

 

[Johns Magic]

I'm generally a fan of taking the penalty when in front. The only issue for me was that the first penalty took us from 14 points ahead to 16 points ahead. Tigers still have to score three times either way.

I probably would have taken the penalty still, but it must have been very tempting to take the tap against 12 men with the momentum we had and go for the try which would have well and truly sealed the game.

I'm not complaining or arguing with the penalty decision. Just saying that there were arguments either way.

 

[perverse]

I'm generally a fan of taking the penalty when in front. The only issue for me was that the first penalty took us from 14 points ahead to 16 points ahead. Tigers still have to score three times either way.

I probably would have taken the penalty still, but it must have been very tempting to take the tap against 12 men with the momentum we had and go for the try which would have well and truly sealed the game.

I'm not complaining or arguing with the penalty decision. Just saying that there were arguments either way.

i was irked by it, too.... but i can't argue against it as a rule to play by. if you're good enough, then it's always a good option.

 

[Joker's Wild]

TBH it pissed me off at first but thinking about it later I realised that it was a sign that our boys were starting to employ a winning attitude, taking the points and backing their defence until the 80min mark to get them home.

A real positive sign imo

 

[The Showstopper]

Our left side attack has finally clicked and it spells trouble if it continues for other sides. Boyd however showed with Aku's try that he is equally adept left to right. Was encouraged to see Eddie have a solid game in the hitup dept as well. The go forward was a great sight to see but it was our flawelss handling in the second half that really showed why we have struggled. With low error counts we are as dangerous as anyone. What a side (the Tigers) to defeat when u r up against it.

 

[K-Man]

My biggest beef with it is that the good teams and the top players can immediately hurt you with a good short kick-off - and completely based on guesswork and painful memories I'd say that over the last few years teams have a roughly 50-50 strike rate of doing this to us when they need the ball back to make a comeback.

Of course you can argue (quite reasonably) that a team with a winning mentality should back itself to defuse the attempt / defend their line, but unfortunately there's no guarantee it actually will and if the opposition do score 6 points within a minute of you taking the goal, well it can be a big turn around mentally as much as on the scoreboard.

In the end it worked out for us so no big deal, but I think in the same situation 100 times over I'd prefer to see the boys back themselves to score another try rather than back themselves to defend on if needed - isn't that just as positive a statement? That we have you on the ropes and we are going to put the final nail in the coffin by attacking your line with all we've got?

On a slightly related note, there are 2 reasons I don't necessarily buy into the "we have to be good enough to defend the mistake" kind of argument:

1. You can never discount referee blunders. Controversial tries are as common as straight forward ones in the NRL, so even if I back my team to defend its line under pressure there's just no guarantee they won't get screwed over by some weird call.

2. Same thing but with kicks/lucky bounces/ strange rebounds - we might tackle our hearts out for 5 tackles and be undone by a massive slice of misfortune, it's the nature of the game. To me the best form of defence has always been attack - if you're playing the game at the other end of the field you're in the best possible position to not concede points.

 

[K-Man]

Our left side attack has finally clicked and it spells trouble if it continues for other sides. Boyd however showed with Aku's try that he is equally adept left to right.

How good was Gagai's service too? That one play where he caught a pass from Mullen under significant pressure and not only passed it straight to Uate in space, but fired a bullet torpedo pass seemingly a split second after catching it.

Wes/Junior would have had two options in that situation - either fling it to the right and hope for the best with no real control, or more likely tuck it under the arm and take the tackle.

Gagai showed how amazing he would potentially be as a fullback in this game I thought - just a few touches here and there that had the look of a class fullback chiming in to the backline with speed and skill.

He seems to have many assets, but what excites me most is that he can pass very very well both sides, long or short, flick passes etc and has vision. There will be games where he and Aku both score doubles I'm sure of it.

 

[Jono078]

What was our error count? I legit cant remember an error?

 

[Joker's Wild]

Mate that argument can be applied to any aspect of the game

What happens if we don't score on that set, the Tigers get the ball back and put a try on us? Or if we spill the ball on the 1st hit up and lose all momentum? Or as you say a refereeing "blunder" costs us a try or the ball? Good teams don't worry about ifs, they take the options they are presented with and make them count.

Make no mistake mate, making the opposition watch as you put more points on them, even if it is only 2, has a significant psychological effect.

 

[perverse]

My biggest beef with it is that the good teams and the top players can immediately hurt you with a good short kick-off - and completely based on guesswork and painful memories I'd say that over the last few years teams have a roughly 50-50 strike rate of doing this to us when they need the ball back to make a comeback.

Of course you can argue (quite reasonably) that a team with a winning mentality should back itself to defuse the attempt / defend their line, but unfortunately there's no guarantee it actually will and if the opposition do score 6 points within a minute of you taking the goal, well it can be a big turn around mentally as much as on the scoreboard.

In the end it worked out for us so no big deal, but I think in the same situation 100 times over I'd prefer to see the boys back themselves to score another try rather than back themselves to defend on if needed - isn't that just as positive a statement? That we have you on the ropes and we are going to put the final nail in the coffin by attacking your line with all we've got?

On a slightly related note, there are 2 reasons I don't necessarily buy into the "we have to be good enough to defend the mistake" kind of argument:

1. You can never discount referee blunders. Controversial tries are as common as straight forward ones in the NRL, so even if I back my team to defend its line under pressure there's just no guarantee they won't get screwed over by some weird call.

2. Same thing but with kicks/lucky bounces/ strange rebounds - we might tackle our hearts out for 5 tackles and be undone by a massive slice of misfortune, it's the nature of the game. To me the best form of defence has always been attack - if you're playing the game at the other end of the field you're in the best possible position to not concede points.

are you seriously trying to claim a short kickoff as a serious danger when deciding to take the 2 points?

there is loser mentality, and then there is paranoid delusion. dead set, if you're basing your gameplan around worrying about an opposition short kickoff then just pack your damn bags. lol. what a hopeless thought.

in the same situation 100 times over (as you put it), we'd see the short kickoff maybe 5 of those times. even if we lose 50% of them (most good teams are likely to lose far less), you're looking at a 2.5% play you're worried about. the short kickoffs that we win, well we get the ball on the 40 metre line after the 2 free points, which is an amazing result and nearly as good as a repeat set from a dropout with 2 free points. how is that a serious consideration for you... when a good team will complete at least 80% of their sets, including those after a penalty goal? fair dinkum... did you run the numbers on this one yourself? the more i think about it, the more laughable it becomes. taking the 2, as a golden rule to follow, is the right decision. there are exceptions to every rule, but you're not too often going to go wrong taking the 2.

 

[Rod]

What was our error count? I legit cant remember an error?

Apparently 4, although I can only remember a couple, Cuthbo had one not long after he came on and maybe Taia as well.

Our completion rate was 31/35 though which is obviously outstanding, especially when you consider how expansive we played.

 

[perverse]

yeah, I can only really remember the Cuthbo drop ball, but he made up for it. that completion rate is outstanding.

 

[Johns Magic]

One dampener I will add is that we did well in spite of our backrow in attack.

I think we're just going to have to struggle along in that department this year, and I think it is what will hold us back against the top sides.

 

[perverse]

it's hard to even say that we have a back row at the moment. we happened to be playing against another team without one last night, though. Blair has been totally MIA since joining the Tigers. the other 2 are nuffies in attack at the best of times.

 

[Rod]

It pretty rough criticising anything from last night, but I will say that McKinnon and Tetevano didn't seem to get much game time, but McKinnon in particular ran strong when he came on. I would possibly look at moving one of those two (McKinnon obviously the more likely) into the starting back-row to give us a bit more there from the start. Houston, Edwards and Costigan were obviously fine last night but it's not exactly super-inspiring.

 

[Johns Magic]

I get the impression Bennett isn't that keen on Costigan. I can't see him being re-signed.

He deadset plays 40 minutes a game if he's lucky. 27 minutes last night. Weird for a name backrower who really isn't an impact player.

 

[K-Man]

are you seriously trying to claim a short kickoff as a serious danger when deciding to take the 2 points?

there is loser mentality, and then there is paranoid delusion. dead set, if you're basing your gameplan around worrying about an opposition short kickoff then just pack your damn bags. lol. what a hopeless thought.

in the same situation 100 times over (as you put it), we'd see the short kickoff maybe 5 of those times. even if we lose 50% of them (most good teams are likely to lose far less), you're looking at a 2.5% play you're worried about. the short kickoffs that we win, well we get the ball on the 40 metre line after the 2 free points, which is an amazing result and nearly as good as a repeat set from a dropout with 2 free points. how is that a serious consideration for you... when a good team will complete at least 80% of their sets, including those after a penalty goal? fair dinkum... did you run the numbers on this one yourself? the more i think about it, the more laughable it becomes. taking the 2, as a golden rule to follow, is the right decision. there are exceptions to every rule, but you're not too often going to go wrong taking the 2.

I think when it's Marshall and the Tigers trailing by 16 you can pretty much guarantee they are going to try it, and there is a reasonable chance they'll regather it too.

I just don't see how taking the 2 points is the more positive decision. I actually think going for the try or backing yourself to put a grubber into the in-goal is the positive move and certainly the one that puts the next few minutes of the game in your hands rather than the opposition's.

If anything I'd say my point is the opposite of negative and defeatist - it's believing that when you have the ball inside the opposition 20 you are good enough to keep it down there for as long as possible, with or without points.

Taking the 2 hands your opposition a potential get-out-jail card. They get to try a tricky kick off, they get to aim up in defence and put a shot on you. Why let them have that chance? Why not just park yourselves in their territory, aim for a try, and look for repeat sets? Imo that IS backing yourself.

 

[aqua_duck]

I personally think McKinnon gives us abit more than Eddy especially in attack. McKinnon can break the line and run good lines, Eddy is a better defender (when they run straight at him).