Re: Didn't really think it was that bad ! : Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:49 pm  

JWP wrote:

I was maybe rushing a tad, and didn't explain my point well. My point was that if you look at the defenders, the positions that they are in etc, body positions and whatnot, they are awful. They are just 'scattered' as oppose to getting off the line and pointing out 'who is there man', you've got a bloke on a wraparound play that King will feel he needs to go for because nobody is near enough nor seems to have tracked his run, and it's easy to see how he gets sucked in. There's two or three, who may be in a good position Dave ie, on the field, but in terms of actually being in a good position to make the tackle, they may as well not be there.

I think what happens in general is, in my terms, ie, simple mans terms, there's a problem somewhere by the posts, and every defender along somewhat plugs that gap, so your backrow goes in to cover, phew, the gap/overlap moves wider, the centre moves in to cover the backrow slot, phew, the winger covers the centres ground, phew, Gardener walks in the corner (or doesn't as Penny ahs the presence of mind to go for him) and the try is scored.

The upshot is that Penny is left all on his own, with little or no hope. If he stayed on his wing, he'd leave a massive gap, literally 15m between him & King, Gidley would walk in, and the players would look at him no doubt for not 'pulling in' as that's the structure we've adopted, he can't win.

I can't work out, how we can't work out why this is happening. Cull couldn't stop it, fine, he didn't coach defence or whatever, but how come a new broom can't stop it ? I don't get it. Why can't we come up with a new structure to stop it happening ? I'm asking the Mark_m's of this world ?

My laymans view is is is all down to line speed. When you are on your line you have to be off it, rapid. Force the ball handler to make a decision as opposed to having the pick of runners and dummy runners. The negative of this, is that it leaves you susceptible to the kick behind, it just means the fullback has to be ultra aware.

Re: Didn't really think it was that bad ! : Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:52 pm  

twangedmoneymonk wrote:

My laymans view is is is all down to line speed. When you are on your line you have to be off it, rapid. Force the ball handler to make a decision as opposed to having the pick of runners and dummy runners. The negative of this, is that it leaves you susceptible to the kick behind, it just means the fullback has to be ultra aware.

I agree, our line is a step forward and then a sideways jog/step. You can see from that picture how desperate our defenders are to go right (their left), not one (maybe one, King I think) is looking to get off the line and limit the tacklers go forward.

Re: Didn't really think it was that bad ! : Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:53 am  

Dave T wrote:

Moving on, I don't doubt that the inside players are lazy to cover etc. but on that phot, there is one Wire defender within a couple of metres of every Saints player.

You can see the man with the ball looks like he is due to step inside. There is no reason for King to come so far in and get involved. There are plenty of defenders there to cover.

I agree Ive watched it over and over and the first thing that springs to my mind is "we're ok weve got numbers" and thats where the problem starts. why if we are ok for numbers does Matt king leave Penny and come for Flannery when he appears to be well covered.
and i think plain and simple Matt king isnt a bright cookie and is easily sucked in by a saints set play.

what follows is a lazy two man tackle by Harrison and Monaghan and the ball is offloaded with ease and pryce comes the opposite way to the way our defence is sliding and goodnight vienna.

Penny could be criticised for reacting first to the offload and coming for it but the damage has already been done by then. and had he stayed out he'd still be facing a 2 on 1 anyway

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:35 am  

Excellent analysis and debate - what this site should be used for more, rather than inane arguing.

And I agree Penny gets far too much criticism when in fact he does little wrong - certainly compared to an Aussie Test player who was supposed to be looking after him.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:22 am  

SEB wrote:

Excellent analysis and debate - what this site should be used for more, rather than inane arguing.

And I agree Penny gets far too much criticism when in fact he does little wrong - certainly compared to an Aussie Test player who was supposed to be looking after him.

Agreed.

It is a shame these a types of discussions are in the minority nowdays.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:21 am  

SEB wrote:

Excellent analysis and debate - what this site should be used for more, rather than inane arguing.

And I agree Penny gets far too much criticism when in fact he does little wrong - certainly compared to an Aussie Test player who was supposed to be looking after him.

Here here! I totally agree.

Drop king he's the super star on mega money