1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Attacking play and structure still at a poor standard

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Crushercleal, Mar 27, 2006.

  1. Crushercleal

    Crushercleal Active Member

    +3 / 0
    I have to admit I was very disappointed with our attacking play and structure on Sat night. We looked virtually clueless in the opposition 20. We had no set moves. We had no decoy runners. We had no bombs on the last. Nothing is done at pace. Really, what on earth is Dessy doing with them at practice. Do they practice this stuff? Let's analyse our tries:
    1. Stewart basically goes himself and manages to sneak through.
    2. Monas does an ordinary grubber, Shark player totally stuffs up, Burns pounces
    3. Good try - Ox sends a nice pass to Bell, who does the rest. But why did it take 40 min to get the ball to Bell again?
    Even from penalty restarts in our own half, and taking the ball off our own line, no-one knows who should be taking it up. I saw defenders hitting it up when the forwards should have been. I saw guys receiving the ball flat-footed and making next to no metres. I honestly thought that a good team would have shredded us on Sat night. We only won because of a couple of opportunistic tries, some decent 2nd half defence, and the Sharks shooting themselves in the foot. I think the coaching staff needs a good kick up the ass. If I see the same sort of attack against the Rooters, I will be calling for their heads. I just don't see how these are the coaching guys to take us to the next level - that's what it's all about.
  2. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    +466 / 6
    Compare the pace of the game versus the Sharks to the Eels/Broncos match up yesterday.

    Why is it so hard for our guys to realise that this one out horse **** is not good enough? Is everyone so lazy that they just have to stand and watch the ball carrier?

    MAybe they should be made to write 100 lines each for the next 6 days - things like:

    Decoy runners are a good thing.
    We are a team and we play for each other.
    Bodies in motion creates doubt in opposing defensive line.
    Matt Orford and Steve Bell can't do everything.
    NRL propos make 100 metres + in every game.

    etc etc etc
  3. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +971 / 7
    There were some positives:
    - they came from behind
    - they gritted out a win
    - Burns played well and could solve the 5/8 dilemma
    - there are signs of Orford clicking with the team

    On the negative, and talking through my pocket because they couldn't cover an 8 point start:
    - a 2 point win against a weak Sharks in front of a huge partisan crowd is just poor
    - the first half was mostly a gigantic disgrace
    - we seriously struggle to show any attacking qualities when near the line

    Look I could go on & on, but deep down there is a small hope that it will click but based on what I have seen so far we will be lucky to make the 8. That's from someone who has already 'invested' a bucket load on that happening.
  4. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    +37 / 0
    There was one point late in the first half where we had repeat sets on their line. The ball did not get to Orford once in the first set of six because of all the one out stuff. Surely a good place to start would be with getting the ball to your playmaker when you are in the opposition 20!
  5. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    +212 / 5
    When I played footy we had three or four basic patterns to a set in various parts of the ground.

    Eg In their quarter there would be a two forward runners on open, one going under and one going over. Second play is a switch to the blind with a forward going wider and set for a quick play the ball, third play is a second man play to the same side etc

    Good sides have a few of these to use sometimes (not all the tiime) though a play maker can vary the play and change things according to the context and what the defence is doing (assuming he has some vision).
  6. The Wheel

    The Wheel Well-Known Member

    +1,718 / 71
    Totally agree with all of this, when we did move the ball wide with quick hands we did look like we could make a break eg Hicks disallowed try but in our own 25 well it wasn't good.

    As for the game I thought we were all over them for most of the 2nd half but couldn't crack them open. Our fowrads are OK but we do not have anyone who can dominate the opposition apart from Kennedy. That is our problem in attack we can't give Orford and Co the room to move and create opportunities because our forwards are not getting well and truely over the advantage line.

    It was good effort considering we were in big trouble in the first 30 minutes and the defence was OK considering how much ball the Sharks had.

    I thought Burns, Bell and BK were very good.

    I am concerned about Beavers form and Monas isn't adding a lot in attack from dummy half. We also didn't seem to have much impact from the bench.

    We got the Sharks without Vagana and Gallen but the Roosters have Morley back and Anasta will play. I have no confidence going into this weekend but can only hope we get a good run of possesion in the first 30 minutes because there will be no coming back from a 10 to 12 point deficiet against them.
  7. Barks

    Barks Member

    +0 / 0
    gotta agree about beavers form....made some poor errors against Cowboys also.

    Is getting away with only just doing his job without adding any great impact.
  8. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +971 / 7
    Orford got caught taking a tackle on the fifth at least twice and it went to Burns for the kick. I want the top playmaker taking those options.
    BK was the best for mine and tried to lead the whole time.
    Mata's suggestion of Beaver becoming a late half strike player may still be the way to go, but he doesn't have that Widders look about him at the moment.
  9. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    +212 / 5
    I thought Beaver was okay this week and more involved than the first two games. He will come into his own.

    We still need a top class hooker. Monaghan was gutsy but we need the class of a Ballin type hooker who keeps the opposition guessing.
  10. Ryan

    Ryan Well-Known Member

    +5,704 / 264
    I noticed quite often Shayne Dunley would go to dummy 1/2 close to the opposition goal line, to look as though he had no time, no options or back up runners. Inevitably he just went down and had a surrender tackle named againstr him, which gave the defensive line time to regroup.

    It's imperative that we get a confident Hooker / Dummy 1/2, that can pass BOTH sides of the ruck at speed. I mean Gatis who has played ONE game for The Warriors was a gun at this already.

    Dunley, Monaghan both struggle to pass to the right, and usually throw floating balls, which again created the vision that we have no time, and lack drive.

    Monaghan can be taught, as he is only young, and still learning. Dunley on the other hand though..

    Orford looked as though he had craploads of time as Cameron Smith fired his passes both sides of the rucks out of a cannon. Additionally, I don't think I remember seeing Orford at dummy 1/2 as much @ Melbourne.
  11. Barks

    Barks Member

    +0 / 0
    Hope your right about beaver CW.

    Ryan, spot on about Dunley, while he went well for a period last year, his plays from dummy half don't seem to start or maintain any momentum. We need Dunners to find that impact value again.

Share This Page