Re: KC on JT : Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:38 pm  

EHW wrote:

That was enforced due to the injury crisis at the time and not having any fit halfbacks; this year seems to be panic driven tinkering trying to find a winning formula.

I really don't see much difference between our situation last year. Walsh is clearly still suffering from the effects of injury and Burns might as well be.

Re: KC on JT : Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:48 pm  

I agree, it's like having no halfbacks all over again without Wilkin in the team. Hope he makes it back and is in good nick for the run-in.

Re: KC on JT : Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:28 pm  

SFW wrote:

I agree, it's like having no halfbacks all over again without Wilkin in the team. Hope he makes it back and is in good nick for the run-in.

But do we want burns, walsh, Wilkin and Turner all playing as ball players? It's over kill Imo having 4 ball players.

Get Turner back at centre and let's try and use him and percy.

Re: KC on JT : Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:59 pm  

St pete wrote:

But do we want burns, walsh, Wilkin and Turner all playing as ball players? It's over kill Imo having 4 ball players.

Get Turner back at centre and let's try and use him and percy.

I think Wilkin and Turner play very different roles though (when on the pitch at the same time). The first 20 while Turner was on, Wilkin was on the left edge. This role is some line-running but then also just getting early ball to the centres without trying to do anything particularly fancy. Wilkin on the left edge is really useful as well because it means his passing game keeps the winger up in the defensive line, getting us a lot more space to aim at. He's a second rower who will ball play at times in this role, rather than a ball player specifically, if that makes sense?

Turner at the other hand was more of a traditional loose forward. He got our sets going quite well in our own half just because he could give a pass to a supporting player one carry, and then the next dummy and go himself. The thing I like about having Turner at loose is the fact that because he is such a strong runner, he keeps the defence honest in a way that Walsh and Burns don't have the physicality or pace to. Him being the first receiver with Walsh and Burns running off him on the spread plays means that the defensive line can't just fly up as they could do with Walsh at first receiver.

I wouldn't really class Wilkin as a ball-player at left second row. He only really stepped into a ball playing role tonight when Turner came off, with Wilkin going to loose and Greenwood to second row (I think). With regards to the fact Turner played short minutes, I'd imagine part of it is just that the workload is much higher in the middle than in the centres. Not only the fact that the middles make more tackles, they're the ones setting the line speed, they're more likely to be involved in tackles with a lot of wrestling. Turner has been conditioned to play centre so maybe the different fitness requirements is part of the reason for his short minutes as he gets used to the role?

Re: KC on JT : Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:59 am  

Saint #1 wrote:

I think Wilkin and Turner play very different roles though (when on the pitch at the same time). The first 20 while Turner was on, Wilkin was on the left edge. This role is some line-running but then also just getting early ball to the centres without trying to do anything particularly fancy. Wilkin on the left edge is really useful as well because it means his passing game keeps the winger up in the defensive line, getting us a lot more space to aim at. He's a second rower who will ball play at times in this role, rather than a ball player specifically, if that makes sense?

Turner at the other hand was more of a traditional loose forward. He got our sets going quite well in our own half just because he could give a pass to a supporting player one carry, and then the next dummy and go himself. The thing I like about having Turner at loose is the fact that because he is such a strong runner, he keeps the defence honest in a way that Walsh and Burns don't have the physicality or pace to. Him being the first receiver with Walsh and Burns running off him on the spread plays means that the defensive line can't just fly up as they could do with Walsh at first receiver.

I wouldn't really class Wilkin as a ball-player at left second row. He only really stepped into a ball playing role tonight when Turner came off, with Wilkin going to loose and Greenwood to second row (I think). With regards to the fact Turner played short minutes, I'd imagine part of it is just that the workload is much higher in the middle than in the centres. Not only the fact that the middles make more tackles, they're the ones setting the line speed, they're more likely to be involved in tackles with a lot of wrestling. Turner has been conditioned to play centre so maybe the different fitness requirements is part of the reason for his short minutes as he gets used to the role?

I just feel we might be a little lightweight in Backrow with Wilkin, turner and Lms with both Wilkin and Turner wanting to be ball players.

I also thought Turner started well but went missing at 5 mins.

Re: KC on JT : Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:21 am  

St pete wrote:

I just feel we might be a little lightweight in Backrow with Wilkin, turner and Lms with both Wilkin and Turner wanting to be ball players.

I also thought Turner started well but went missing at 5 mins.

I don't think LMS is that lightweight for a back rower. Greenwood only has 1kg on him. He just runs very upright so doesn't break many tackles. I also think if we do have both Wilkin and Turner in the back row, even if our backrow is a bit lightweight, it allows us to change our playing style which means we aren't hampered by our props (bar Walmsley and Masoe if he can be arsed) being lightweight.

I think Turner will get more and more used to the role, but obviously doesn't want to be pushing the halfbacks out on every play. I've seen enough from him the last two matches to justify keeping him at loose I'd say.

Re: KC on JT : Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:31 am  

I could see what we were trying to achieve with Turner and I think to a degree it worked. Turner is a really good runner with the ball and we need to exploit that.

I agree with the above and my first thought was that our pack looked light. But I think our props make up for that lack of size and it certainly wasn't an issue last night against the best team in the comp.

Re: KC on JT : Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:27 am  

Albion wrote:

I could see what we were trying to achieve with Turner and I think to a degree it worked. Turner is a really good runner with the ball and we need to exploit that.

I agree with the above and my first thought was that our pack looked light. But I think our props make up for that lack of size and it certainly wasn't an issue last night against the best team in the comp.

I think the move was made more to take turner off the edge defensively as KC spoke of his weakness tackling on the edge.

It might work with JT at loose but when we come up agsinst the more physically strong teams I think we lack go foward having both JT and Wilkin as both want to ball play.

When Vea is fit, I would move Wilkin to 13 with vea in secoundrow with either LMS or Greenwood.

Re: KC on JT : Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:22 pm  

St pete wrote:

But do we want burns, walsh, Wilkin and Turner all playing as ball players? It's over kill Imo having 4 ball players.

Get Turner back at centre and let's try and use him and percy.

I along with many others have had serious reservations about Walsh's ability and mentality recently. No idea how he has trained etc but on form I would have had no complaints had he been dropped for last night.

Re: KC on JT : Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:53 pm  

SFW wrote:

I along with many others have had serious reservations about Walsh's ability and mentality recently. No idea how he has trained etc but on form I would have had no complaints had he been dropped for last night.

Me neither and same goes for Burns who's been just as poor as walsh.

Walsh was better but Imo wasn't mom.