Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Sun Apr 07, 2024 11:44 am  

Prior to the Warrington game, the defence was good in terms of not conceding line breaks and not conceding many trys. It's the imapact it's having on our attack that's the issue for me. You won't win many games, especially against the best teams when you're playing most of the game in your own 40m zone.

The errors are a major cause for concern, but I'd question why there doesn't seem to any improvement in this area over the last 12 months. To attack the way Smith wants to attack, the basic pass and catch skills, in particular have to be of a very high standard, and frankly, they don't seem to have improved.
I actually like Smith and don't think he should go, he'll be here as long as we're still in and around the playoffs, but there some major issues with his tactical approach that haven't improved or need addressing.

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:18 pm  

Trebor1 wrote:

Most of the sky comms team say we play passive defence. Wilkin is always commenting on it. Where’s that attitude in defence come from? Ultimately the coach carries the can. At the moment RS is not getting a tune from the players and hasn’t done for the last season and a bit.

I think the idea of passive defence has some sound logic to it, going back to my national conference playing days, the defence is only as fast/strong as the weakest unfittest player. A good set line but giving up some territory whilst preserving energy is better than rushing up with gaps in the line leading to penalties missed tackles line breaks. Trouble is we still do all the latter anyway, so it achieves nothing, we give away too much territory snd end up doing twice ad much tacking anyway.

Also how many drop outs do we concede its been like 5-6 a game for last 2 games.

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:45 pm  

rollin thunder wrote:

I think the idea of passive defence has some sound logic to it, going back to my national conference playing days, the defence is only as fast/strong as the weakest unfittest player. A good set line but giving up some territory whilst preserving energy is better than rushing up with gaps in the line leading to penalties missed tackles line breaks. Trouble is we still do all the latter anyway, so it achieves nothing, we give away too much territory snd end up doing twice ad much tacking anyway.

Also how many drop outs do we concede it’s been like 5-6 a game for last 2 games.

It’s a fine line isn’t it? I know I keep on banging on about him but if you watch McDonnell’s tackle technique he is always working hard to put the player in possession on his back, which is effortful but slows the PTB legitimately. This seems a good investment of energy.

Holroyd on the other hand runs around getting involved in too many tackles sometimes I think. He’s an aggressive defender but he almost always gets sucked in to heavy sets on D because the side generally is making errors and he’s one of the defensive rocks who bears the consequence. Then he has too little bite on offense (or we keep playing our big men too flat to the line so they’re constantly being creamed by three middles before they can get momentum).

Two high quality middle players would make a really big difference but we have to utilise them better too.

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Sun Apr 07, 2024 3:09 pm  

You’ve just described poor coaching and game plan strategy there Jim.

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Mon Apr 08, 2024 8:33 am  

rollin thunder wrote:

I think the idea of passive defence has some sound logic to it, going back to my national conference playing days, the defence is only as fast/strong as the weakest unfittest player. A good set line but giving up some territory whilst preserving energy is better than rushing up with gaps in the line leading to penalties missed tackles line breaks.

I'm not sure it's preserving energy though, if every player has to run an extra 5 metres at each play, or approx 30 metres a set as they're starting further back that's an extra Km for each player in 30 sets. That doesn't seem top be energy saving. They also have to retreat quicker due to the added punch that teams make and are often on the back foot for the next play the ball.

I can understand that in the national conference but this is elite level football.

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Mon Apr 08, 2024 8:42 am  

KaeruJim wrote:

Well you might call it rose tinted while I’d say half of you on here are ridiculously negative. Different perspectives.

I agree with you that our mistakes and tactics can be related, we’re often pushing the miracle play but it isn’t just that. I also think you all repeat “passive defence” a million times and believe it; actually watching games I see some sets where we are slack yes, but others where we do get up and compete in D. It’s just not as simple as some make out. The fix won’t be as simple as just changing the coach…. again. You didn’t like McDermott, you didn’t like Furner, you didn’t like Agar, you don’t like Smith, you do like any other coach whose side happens to be doing okay one year… well if you’re right and we’ve had 7 years of crap coaching then who appoints the coaches?

The balanced view in my very humble opinion is that we are 2-3 star signings off competing at the top still, and yes RS has some pressure over this next sequence of games. Hudds could be interesting.

I'm kind of in agreement with you but possibly your more on the RS in camp and I sit on the RS out camp. I agree that 2-3 or three astute signings could see us competing, albeit I am of the view that only with the right coaching.

In terms of field position, you blame it more on errors whilst I'm of the view that the errors are partly caused by the passive defence, however, agree that it is a combination of both. Us constantly having to begin sets off our own line is killing us.

I understand the rationale on our defence but letting teams trot 100m easily down our field each set is setting us up for a downfall. We have some great attacking players but we are asking them to set up tries from 70m away rather than 20-30m away.

I think missing Fusitua has been tough as his yardage at the start of a set would certainly of helped but based on his injury record, we should have looked elsewhere.

I read some stats on Twitter that were up until the Wanky game. We have the 3rd highest error count, the 3rd lowest post contact metres per game and the 2nd lowest number of play the balls in the oppositions 20m zone. The last two stats are likely because of the passive defence / number of errors.

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Mon Apr 08, 2024 8:59 am  

rugbyleague88 wrote:

I'm kind of in agreement with you but possibly your more on the RS in camp and I sit on the RS out camp. I agree that 2-3 or three astute signings could see us competing, albeit I am of the view that only with the right coaching.

In terms of field position, you blame it more on errors whilst I'm of the view that the errors are partly caused by the passive defence, however, agree that it is a combination of both. Us constantly having to begin sets off our own line is killing us.

I understand the rationale on our defence but letting teams trot 100m easily down our field each set is setting us up for a downfall. We have some great attacking players but we are asking them to set up tries from 70m away rather than 20-30m away.

I think missing Fusitua has been tough as his yardage at the start of a set would certainly of helped but based on his injury record, we should have looked elsewhere.

I read some stats on Twitter that were up until the Wanky game. We have the 3rd highest error count, the 3rd lowest post contact metres per game and the 2nd lowest number of play the balls in the oppositions 20m zone. The last two stats are likely because of the passive defence / number of errors.

Yes everything is interrelated isn't it? I disagree that a significant number of our errors are down to "passive defence" though - some for sure. Unfortunately errors has been killing us for a long time, and I honestly don't know the main reason for this, coaching or players or probably both. I just don't tend to see the top sides dropping the ball like we do.

Passive defence doesn't make us kick the ball out on the full or drop the ball in contact when we're in possession does it?

I'm not even sure we do have a universally "passive" defence, I think at times we try to get in a groove and conserve some energy but I don't think RS coaches us to lose 80m every set either. In fact we don't lose 80m every set; but we do often make a mistake within a set which means we're defending back to back, which almost inevitably leads to us camping in our own 30m.

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Mon Apr 08, 2024 9:14 am  

Completely crazy rumour from several sources ,that whoever is head coach next season Danny McGuire will be assistant coach.

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Mon Apr 08, 2024 9:18 am  

KaeruJim wrote:

Yes everything is interrelated isn't it? I disagree that a significant number of our errors are down to "passive defence" though - some for sure. Unfortunately errors has been killing us for a long time, and I honestly don't know the main reason for this, coaching or players or probably both. I just don't tend to see the top sides dropping the ball like we do.

Passive defence doesn't make us kick the ball out on the full or drop the ball in contact when we're in possession does it?

I'm not even sure we do have a universally "passive" defence, I think at times we try to get in a groove and conserve some energy but I don't think RS coaches us to lose 80m every set either. In fact we don't lose 80m every set; but we do often make a mistake within a set which means we're defending back to back, which almost inevitably leads to us camping in our own 30m.

I would contest that the passive defence doesn't lead to errors, I think it does.

When you start the majority of sets close to your own line again a fitter opposition and pressure is on the kicker with no quick PTBs, it means that it's more likely to be a poor kick or an error from trying to push a play that isn't there.

The only time we looked good in the Warrington game is when we rushed up in defence and put pressure on their line.

The whole passive defence thing is so illogical, because the top teams have the best athletes, who will last the course fitness wise, so it's a major disadvantage. For everyones complaints on Frawley or even Croft and ackers, how will we ever see the best of these players if they're constantly on the back foot. I believe we're lowest in the league for PTBs in the oppositions 20m. Crazy!

Re: Transfer Talk / Rumour thread V4 : Mon Apr 08, 2024 9:53 am  

exiledrhino wrote:

I would contest that the passive defence doesn't lead to errors, I think it does.

When you start the majority of sets close to your own line again a fitter opposition and pressure is on the kicker with no quick PTBs, it means that it's more likely to be a poor kick or an error from trying to push a play that isn't there.

The only time we looked good in the Warrington game is when we rushed up in defence and put pressure on their line.

The whole passive defence thing is so illogical, because the top teams have the best athletes, who will last the course fitness wise, so it's a major disadvantage. For everyones complaints on Frawley or even Croft and ackers, how will we ever see the best of these players if they're constantly on the back foot. I believe we're lowest in the league for PTBs in the oppositions 20m. Crazy!

Yes but if you actually look at the errors we made which led directly to Warrington tries last game, you'll see it wasn't about us kicking on the whole. Same against Saints previously. Or, when Miller has kicked out on the full or failed to make 10m on a drop out, that isn't passive defence.

If we can't hold the ball and put in a decent attacking kick when we are in good ball (those rare moments), it's putting us on the back foot and putting pressure on a side which still struggles physically at times. Again, if you actually look at the game against Warrington I'm not sure I saw much evidence of Leeds "passive defence". We were getting rolled at times but it wasn't down to us trying to be passive.