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

[Johns Magic]

Yeah I agree with K-Man. Backing yourself to score the try is the positive attitude for mine.

 

[Johns Magic]

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).

I have high hopes for McKinnon. I think he'll play Origin one day.

Easy to forget he was a teenager until a few months ago. No doubt he is still growing into his body.

He has the frame, he is an athlete and most importantly I think he is a footballer.

He reminds me of a young Creagh.

 

[K-Man]

In the end I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.

Plenty of good judges would say take the 2 points when you can, and plenty would say take the tap and keep the pressure on.

I've always been of the opinion that (unless it's to establish a meaningful buffer) you should go for the try because there are only so many chances you get in a game to attack the line from 20 out.

We've seen that a grubber going dead in goal can lead to 15 minutes on the back foot and points conceded. Momentum is everything in the NRL - you can't keep it forever but you can try to make the most of it while you've got it.

I know it's not the same, but there's nothing more annoying than an underdog taking a penalty to go 2-0 up then struggling for chances and losing 18-2. If you score more tries than your opposition you will mostly win, and I think that a team with self-belief knows it is capable of scoring against a tiring defence from inside the 20 metre zone.

And if you can't score, well I'm Cam Smith or Cooper Cronk or JT then I am thinking that I am going to roll it into the in-goal for a repeat set and the pressure continues as the clock winds down.

When the Storm turn the screws it is methodical - they can camp themselves up your end of the field for what seems like forever, with clinical grubbers and smart football virtually suffocating you out of the latter part of the game. In my opinion that is positive football played by a team oozing with self-confidence. Why should we back ourselves to defend our line when you can't even get to our line in the first place?

 

[perverse]

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.

i don't see anything defeatist about taking points and then backing yourself to do it again... but then it depends on the circumstance in which you take the 2. the fact is, you have to cite all these odd scenarios to justify your position, whereas i can say that i'm going to walk away with 2 points and possession almost 100% of the time. that's the difference. do it 2 or 3 times a match and you've got an extra try for no work whatsoever.

you ALWAYS punish your opposition for giving away a penalty if you take the 2. that can't be said for the tap.

the "positive" decision isn't necessarily always the correct one. i'm completely happy to back the take-the-2 philosophy. i think it's correct when you're good at what you do. if you really want to talk risk management - i would say taking the tap and missing out on a try does far more damage than scoring 4 or 6 points rather than 2 much more easily. it's a percentage play, and if you're good enough it's also a plenty positive enough play in its own right.

you need to score tries 33-50% of the time to justify taking the tap to actually gain advantage on the scoreboard over taking the 2 (depending how good your try conversion rate is). that is another, completely mathematical way of looking at it. actually, i would probably bump that percentage up a bit further for the fact that you can get a very negative result taking the tap, whereas it's almost impossible to get a negative result taking the kick provided you complete your next set (which, as i said, should be done at 80% if we're not taking the piss). without knowing some of these stats i could only guess, but I would wager strongly that taking the kick is at least mathematically comparable to the tap, if not superior.

 

[Johns Magic]

the "positive" decision isn't necessarily always the correct one.

Yeah I was going to say something exactly like that in my post but then cbf.

Sometimes conservative is wise.

 

[perverse]

another factor in taking the 2 is that it completely renders the defense powerless. they are points they cannot stop you scoring, whether you're playing Penrith, Parramatta or Melbourne. it's always equal value to you... regardless of how easy or hard it is to crack their line.

 

[perverse]

in fact, the more i think about it, the more sure i am it's the correct decision. not necessarily when you look at it on a case by case basis, but if you follow the rule, it's going to reward you more often than not, and at the very least be comparable to taking the tap over the long term on the scoreboard. it's guaranteed, a sure thing... therefore you can also factor it into your gameplan. things are always easier when they are going to plan.

i would ALSO argue that i don't want to be the team that needs to take the "positive" option just to keep their head in the game, or to keep on the front foot. we need to be good when things are going our way, and against it. we need to be better than that. we need to know that if we miss an opportunity, we can create another one. we need to believe that we're going to win, even when things arn't going our way. follow the plan, get behind Bennett. it's all the real deal... we'll get there.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Spot on pervy

Guaranteed points that wear the opposition down and force them to give the ball back to us 99.99% of the time when taking into account the short kickoff variable

 

[K-Man]

I don't disagree with a lot of those points Perverse.

If I could extend your mathematical poker analogy a little further, I'd argue that everything you said makes sense in a cash game where it is wise to play the percentages over a long period of time.

However, I would liken leading the Tigers by 14 with 15 minutes to go as more of a tournament situation - you have a chance to knock them out of the tournament by scoring a try and making it that unattainable more-than-three-converted-tries margin.

As it gets closer to full-time, you probably need to be more aggressive and look to eliminate them in order to counter the fact they will be stepping up their risk-taking exponentially looking for the miracle comeback.

At 8-0 up in the first half I say maybe take the 2 points because there are so many twists and turns still to come, so points are points. The percentages make a bit of sense here.

But with the clock ticking and your opponent chasing 3 tries to win, I say do whatever you can to make 3 tries not enough for them.

Of course you might only be a 20% chance of scoring from the tap, but that's a one-in-five to basically sign, seal and deliver the victory.

At 16 points the goal of your opponent remains identical - score three tries and we win (or go to golden point). That's a big juicy carrot to your aggressive player in the Tigers because they will gamble and they know based on past performances that if they can get one try and reduce the gap to 10, anything is possible. When they're in a position like that, all they are thinking is "let's be down by 6 or less with a couple of minutes on the clock".

I can see the merit of a "one-size-fits-all" policy where you just take the penalty shot every single time and avoid any doubt, but I maintain that applying some situation-specific logic is a smart thing to do.

On your point that positive doesn't always equal best - totally agree. But I'm not suggesting ignoring the 2 points is only about showing how positive you are. There's more to it than that.

 

[K-Man]

in fact, the more i think about it, the more sure i am it's the correct decision. not necessarily when you look at it on a case by case basis, but if you follow the rule, it's going to reward you more often than not, and at the very least be comparable to taking the tap over the long term on the scoreboard. it's guaranteed, a sure thing... therefore you can also factor it into your gameplan. things are always easier when they are going to plan.

Yes but the thing with that is it's perfect only if your main aim is score the most points over the course of a season, for example.

I would certainly agree that percentage-wise taking the 2 points every single time it's on offer will more than likely lead to a higher total points over a long sample period than going for the try every time and only rarely scoring it (plus, of course, the fact you might not convert the try so it could only be 4 points).

BUT, this is not the main aim. The main aim is to win that specific match and take the premiership points. Would you rather lose 5 matches by 2 points OR lose 4 matches by 12 points and win one of them by 2 points? For and against means nothing if you don't have the wins on the board.

What I'm saying is that in this situation the risk-reward ratio was probably tilted towards trying to end the match with a try, as opposed to establishing a 16-point lead instead of a 14-point lead.

If we were playing the game of football that never ends I would say the opposite - take points every single time you possibly can.

 

[Bretto]

I didn't get a chance to watch the game, how did Gagai play guys?

 

[K-Man]

I'd also like to ask you guys this question - if the roles were reversed, as a fan, what would you have wanted the Tigers to do?

I would've wanted them to take the 2 points because it essentially doesn't change what we need to achieve to win the game.

3 tries is 3 tries - that's what we need to do, that's an easy sell to your teammates.

So, based on the idea that I would not want the opposition to have a crack at our line and potentially go up by 18 or 20, I can only conclude that when you swap the scenario back the other way it is best to do what they are hoping you won't do.

If, of course, you don't feel the same way and you would be sitting there as a Knights' fan actually hoping they ignore the 2 points on offer ... well then I guess we just have different outlooks/concerns in that situation.

 

[perverse]

If the roles were reversed, and I was confident in our defence, then I would want the tigers taking the tap 11 times out of 10. The boost in confidence you get from successfully defending your line is huge.

I'm talking about a winners mentality here. Not a sissy-lala quick grab at points because we're concerned about how many opportunities we'll get.

 

[perverse]

I also love that you feel anything to do with percentages and probability relates to poker in any way. That's cute.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Merits in both plays really but Id prefer to win games by 2 points because we took the points when they were on offer rather than risk the miracle play and fall short.

 

[K-Man]

If the roles were reversed, and I was confident in our defence, then I would want the tigers taking the tap 11 times out of 10. The boost in confidence you get from successfully defending your line is huge.

I'm talking about a winners mentality here. Not a sissy-lala quick grab at points because we're concerned about how many opportunities we'll get.

Fair enough, but how can you not be concerned about how many opportunities you'll get when there is 10-15 minutes left and you need to score three tries?

At some point you have to be concerned about something or the game will be over - that's realism not pessimism.

In the early stages the boost in confidence is fantastic. When time is running out, I want to have the ball as often as possible at the other end of the field and that's the number one priority, surely.

 

[Johns Magic]

I'd also like to ask you guys this question - if the roles were reversed, as a fan, what would you have wanted the Tigers to do?

I would've wanted them to take the 2 points because it essentially doesn't change what we need to achieve to win the game.

3 tries is 3 tries - that's what we need to do, that's an easy sell to your teammates.

So, based on the idea that I would not want the opposition to have a crack at our line and potentially go up by 18 or 20, I can only conclude that when you swap the scenario back the other way it is best to do what they are hoping you won't do.

If, of course, you don't feel the same way and you would be sitting there as a Knights' fan actually hoping they ignore the 2 points on offer ... well then I guess we just have different outlooks/concerns in that situation.

Yeah that's my argument.

Tigers still had to score three tries either way.

Are we any more comfortable if the Tigers scored a quick try being up by 10 than up by 8? Not really.

If we'd been 12 up and the penalty took us more than two converted tries ahead I would have no reservations.

If we'd been 16 up and the penalty took us three converted tries ahead I'd have no reservations.

Going up from 14 to 16 is much of a muchness to me. Sure, you wind down the clock. But when you're playing 12 men and have a new set of six 10 out straight in front I'd think that is one of the few times I would genuinely consider taking the tap. You can kill the game right there.

As it turned out, another penalty did take us to 18 points ahead and safe, so you can credit the first penalty for that.

I'm fencesitting a fair bit on this whole issue a bit because I'm generally a big fan of taking the points. But I don't think two points are always worth the same amount. If ever points are worthless it was this case.

 

[perverse]

Yes but the thing with that is it's perfect only if your main aim is score the most points over the course of a season, for example.

I would certainly agree that percentage-wise taking the 2 points every single time it's on offer will more than likely lead to a higher total points over a long sample period than going for the try every time and only rarely scoring it (plus, of course, the fact you might not convert the try so it could only be 4 points).

BUT, this is not the main aim. The main aim is to win that specific match and take the premiership points. Would you rather lose 5 matches by 2 points OR lose 4 matches by 12 points and win one of them by 2 points? For and against means nothing if you don't have the wins on the board.

What I'm saying is that in this situation the risk-reward ratio was probably tilted towards trying to end the match with a try, as opposed to establishing a 16-point lead instead of a 14-point lead.

If we were playing the game of football that never ends I would say the opposite - take points every single time you possibly can.

you're trying to argue sample size? ridiculous. you rebuke my statement but provide no substance for your own. the fact is, you can take a guaranteed 2 points and get the ball back, or you can give the opportunity to the opposition to repel your attack, gain confidence and do more damage than it is worth to take an extra 2-4 points from that particular moment in the game. you're only convincing me further that i'm right.

 

[K-Man]

I also love that you feel anything to do with percentages and probability relates to poker in any way. That's cute.

Obviously I don't feel that way - it was simply a way to look at it because you seemed to be implying that scoring more points over a long period of time should be the objective, when I think winning the game is more important.

Until this point I think the debate was healthy - really no need to call me "cute" in the most patronising way possible.

 

[Johns Magic]

If the roles were reversed, and I was confident in our defence, then I would want the tigers taking the tap 11 times out of 10. The boost in confidence you get from successfully defending your line is huge.

I'm talking about a winners mentality here. Not a sissy-lala quick grab at points because we're concerned about how many opportunities we'll get.

If I was defending my line with 12 men and the opposition was up by three tries, and they chose to take the shot at goal which would put them up by...three tries, I would consider it a get out of jail free card.

Whether that makes it the right or wrong decision for the opposition is another thing.