Hate the term "we did not execute"

[Technical Coach]

Most times it's not about a lack of execution but structural flaws in attacking design that get found out when an opposing defence is well structured and composed. In othe words you did execute but it was flawed to begin with. Scoring 34 points in one half does not mean using those same plays against another team and not getting the same result is about execution.

As i've stated before our attack will defeat 80-90% of teams but there are major line running flaws and a lack of variation up the middle with halves and forwards that show up against well drilled teams.

It does appear during the Doggies game that Tooves is trying to address some of these issues but they should have been looked at earlier in the season---even last season.

I was just glad last year we did not face a few teams come semi final and GF time as under pressure there was a big chance with certain teams we might be showed up again attacking wise.

I always fear our attack at night on heavy tracks----yes not having Stewart does not help but lets not relate our issues and comparing them to the Storm(both missing F/Backs so that must be the reason---simplistic way of looking at an issue). Even Bellamy admits it's more lazy attack and not hitting lines at the right time that is the major issue.

If your attack is useless minus one player it shows a lack of variation which to be honest most NRL attacks suffer. Most NRL attacking structures are carbon copies of each other with Melb leading the design process Manly tweaking it and adding their own structures and most of the rest following.

The lead runner play on the right edge with Harrison could be varied slightly with having another back rower running an under play at the exact same time. DCE shows the ball to the lead outside runner but holds it back to the under runner to keep the inside defence honest before setting up the Stewart play later on.

Glen in 08 with Lyon at 5/8 was more a threat up the middle and hole running---many times he would cut back inside and find a hole or hit an outside hole---i would like him to ease back slightly on the ball playing and be more aggressive in the red zone.

Foran running flat and hard up the middle early on in the game lacked any science behind it. Yes it was direct which is what we need but a bit of class with an early inward step to halt the defence and having a player running off his outside hip would be more dangerous all at pace.

Forwards and halves need to use more footwork up the middle drawing and halting defenders. Watmough caught a tired and flat footed Pritchard with a little footwork and holding the ball out the front making it easy for King to run a good line--- you need to get defenders flat footed or being sucked into the ball player otherwise it's too hard to hole run against a composed defence line.

Too many passive second man plays on lazy Auto Pilot not offering much anywhere on the field and not enough genuine flat runners up the middle following through on some footwork from a half or forward--- standing and passing is not enough.

 

[Dan]

Ha yes but our game against bulldogs for instance our problems were more about timing and we did not execute things well

 

[Technical Coach]

The attack was still not up to scratch---it happens too often for a near international quality squad.
A pattern over the past few years is that we explode out of the blocks with good field position and time in possession but struggle to put points on.

From this point everything starts to break down from being overly enthusiastic in defence to force a mistake hoping to gain another point scoring opportunity and we start to give away penalties.

A flood of back to back penalties arise we start to fatigue a little and slow the play the ball down---our possession percentages drop and so does our sharpness in attack---we become less direct and struggle to penetrate.

Fix our attack and our defence will be better off for it.

 

[Ralphie]

The attack was still not up to scratch---it happens too often for a near international quality squad.
A pattern over the past few years is that we explode out of the blocks with good field position and time in possession but struggle to put points on.

From this point everything starts to break down from being overly enthusiastic in defence to force a mistake hoping to gain another point scoring opportunity and we start to give away penalties.

A flood of back to back penalties arise we start to fatigue a little and slow the play the ball down---our possession percentages drop and so does our sharpness in attack---we become less direct and struggle to penetrate.

Fix our attack and our defence will be better off for it.

I think you have it the wrong way around. I've been commenting all season about our sliding defensive pattern and the extra workload the poor defence is causing. We are too tired in attack.

 

[MK Eagle]

Some decent points relating to "lazy attack" TC, but footy is not quite as scientific as you are making out.
More bodies in motion, option runners & depth is the key - attitude.
As for the importance of 1 player - yes Brett Stewart, unfortunately IS that important to Manly - equally in attack & defence & off the ball communication.
If your point is execution comes secondary to laying a platform, it has merit. This is why teams like Tigers /NZ fall apart - they dont earn the right to play wide because they have not done the hard yards in the middle. This hinders timing & leads to poor execution.
Lets be fair, the game last week was lost on the back of a couple of inexperienced errors at key moments. The game was won physically & many opportunities were not converted .....or executed.

 

[Captain Moondog]

Nothing wrong with a good execution.I can think of a few journalists I'd like to introduce to Madame la Guillotine.

 

[Dan]

I still don't think you can deny that the term "we did not execute" is extremely apt in this situation

 

[jbb/james]

I have always loved a quote from the great Jack Gibsons book. He relayed a story from his coaching days. His team was getting dusted at half time so he pulled a fairly highly paid defensive player aside and gave it to him

His words were kind of like this, look player you are out there to tackle, we employ you to tackle and they are busting us. Your a highly paid player, we pay you 100k to bloody tackle, so why arn't you tackling this bugger

The player replied yeah yeah but he gets paid 150k not to be tackled

There are two sides to everything and i find the above more about training move then a game day experience. All teams you play are different , all moves work differently on different opposition

Its one thing to concentrate on something that works well in theory, but many times reality and theory are not on the same page

I agree somewhat regarding the lazy auto pilot ways but is that not a result of being too technical and forgetting to play what you see. I honestly think players are over coached not under coached. For all the lines, angles,second phase play, bad reads and cliches going around the dogs are winning the comp by scoring off 3 run arounds a game. A move thats older than clipboards and coaching squads combined

Not saying there is no move for modern moves to combat modern defences but its fair to say most of manly attackers have had extended stints on the sidelines, that has been the main reason many have failed to execute correctly. As dan said its a little more about timing i feel, and fair enough. We all get better with practice and to thing a super sub that plays 4 positions a season in 8 appearances can slot in without disruption for player that have been in positions for years is naive

 

[mosto]

I think you have some very valid points there TC. In particular, Gift becoming more of a ball runner than ball player in the red zone. Maybe having Killer and Gift switch occasionally could be an option. This would force Gift to run a little more and keep the defence guessing.

With Foz running hard a direct up the middle, while it again shows his toughness and competitiveness, it also smacks of desperation and shows a lack of creativity.

A play I liked a lot in 08, and featured in a lot of highlights, was the sweeping right to left play with Snake chiming in as the extra man. We've still be using this, but the reason it was so successful was when Ox got the ball around the middle, he had Choc running decoy on his outside and occassionally he'd hit Choc instead of Snake folding around the back. This caused the defence to second guess where the ball was going the next time the play was run. One of Orford's strengths was seeing when the defence was sliding off Choc on this play.

The point of decoy running is to fool the defence that you are going to get the ball. If you don't look like you're expecting the ball, the defence won't be interested in you. sometimes, the best way to have your decoy look like he's expecting the ball, is to actually give it to him. It will also have the defence in two minds the next time you run the play.

 

[Technical Coach]

Lazy attack is all about not having genuine options, not enough options, not supporting the lead runner or ball player enough(which is partly attitude related as it requires constant effort and can be draining) but also conversely not cramping these same players with lazy numbers that are not really attracting defensive line attention.

Too many people in the know talking about "not enough depth"---it's more important that your flat front line runners are genuine sharp and well timed to convince the defensive line they really are going to get the ball---this halts the defensive line offering opportunities to your depth plays(second man plays or holding the ball up for a second option)

It goes without saying quick play the balls are also important in general play which have improved under Tooves. We are more direct and sharp around the ruck "at times" with our go forward but attacking the red zone when the defensive line is in your face no matter what requires more class and composure.

Having too much depth just allows outside backs to read the play and come outside in snuffing out the play if your shallow flat runners are not convincing enough---- or just sit back and let the play unfold if the work up the middle has not dragged enough defenders in or halted the slide.

Tooves is working on our attack you can see it--- not all the blame can be attributed to the coach "not paying attention to detail"---in some cases yes but in other cases no.

Lets not forget when Dessie started out---yes he inherited a squad of far less quality but he had issues also.

What worries me more about picking Tooves is his overall presence might not have an aura about him like his "lead by example playing days" and will Tooves be an innovator or just purely a man manager.

DCE and Foran are intelligent well rounded thinking players that like to absorb information and need to be stimulated accordingly with new ideas otherwise they will fall into bad habits.

Lets remember last year when Brett was not at F/Back we won games with Hoppa and Robo mind you Whare has not had as much time in first grade as the above.

This Saturday if it's a fast dry track i think you will see Manly score a convincing victory---does not mean the issues are rectified but i saw some signs that it's being addressed.

It's at the point now where our intensity has to maintain such a high level over too long a period that tanking semi's time is a real factor. Expecting a squad to play with the same intense attitude week to week like the doggies game is not realistic.

Your guaranteeing at least 2 major injuries between now and semi's with origin like effort and not much left in the tank but there is still a glimmer of hope with the results going our way so far.

 

[Napper]

Choc needs to be out on the left edge when attacking in the opposing half. When he was a left edge back rower in 08-09 he was the most devastating ball running forward in the game by a long shot. Swap him with T-rex and leave him in the middle looking pretty.

Also are we not going up the middle enough? I think having plenty of decoy runners and shaping up to go wide but hitting a forward on an angle run with a short ball from time to time would be much more effective. E.g Choc to King v Dogs.

 

[the mauler]

Choc needs to be out on the left edge when attacking in the opposing half. When he was a left edge back rower in 08-09 he was the most devastating ball running forward in the game by a long shot. Swap him with T-rex and leave him in the middle looking pretty.

Also are we not going up the middle enough? I think having plenty of decoy runners and shaping up to go wide but hitting a forward on an angle run with a short ball from time to time would be much more effective. E.g Choc to King v Dogs.

I agree put Choc on the left edge, and just use Trex as a battering ram up the middle. With Trex going next year Choc will probably revert back to the edge forward role anyway, so why not start now.

 

[The Who]

Thank you TC for elevating the quality of the discussion on this forum. I have found all the posts informative and enlightning - much more so than my normal drivel.
If I could make an observation; structured attack is often met by structured defence. I don;t believe players are given enough latitude to try something different and risk failure. The stats that seem so important these days are stifling creativity. I'm sure everybody recalls the ad-lib play of Phil Blake and Cliff Lyons. Last season DCE was doing this. Often he'd look like he didn't know what he was doing, but it would often confuse a structured defence.
I have for many years bemoaned the lack of attack from scrums, and also the lack of unexpected chip/cross kicks (ie. the Berries second try against us) and short kick offs.
If you look at our most successful attackers in the comp, Barba and Bowen, you'll appreciate the value of being unpredictable. With DCE possibly being 'overcoached' in 2012, I don;t think we have such an instinctive player anymore.

 

[Technical Coach]

Thank you TC for elevating the quality of the discussion on this forum. I have found all the posts informative and enlightning - much more so than my normal drivel.
If I could make an observation; structured attack is often met by structured defence. I don;t believe players are given enough latitude to try something different and risk failure. The stats that seem so important these days are stifling creativity. I'm sure everybody recalls the ad-lib play of Phil Blake and Cliff Lyons. Last season DCE was doing this. Often he'd look like he didn't know what he was doing, but it would often confuse a structured defence.
I have for many years bemoaned the lack of attack from scrums, and also the lack of unexpected chip/cross kicks (ie. the Berries second try against us) and short kick offs.
If you look at our most successful attackers in the comp, Barba and Bowen, you'll appreciate the value of being unpredictable. With DCE possibly being 'overcoached' in 2012, I don;t think we have such an instinctive player anymore.

Agree and disagree----yes overcoaching can kill a player just as much as undercoaching and allowing players bad habits to take over killing decent structures in attack.

Barba especially takes advantage during kick returns and broken play where the defensive line is not as strong and composed---it's more adlib in response to what is in front of him. In other words more times than not there is a negative outcome trying to adlib against a well structured composed straight defensive line.

As much as many people would define Cliff Lyons as "adlib" what appeared adlib were carefully structured plays combined with "Fulton Blockers" in good use. Yes Cliffy played off the cuff but technically speaking his lack of speed actually prevented him from drifting too fast across field which had the added benefit of not cramping up outside options.

Cliffy would find it more difficult in the modern game to be as effective due to a lack of time---he struggled with defences that came out of the line applying pressure as the dogs were renouned for occasionally in the 80's and 90's.(a slower more basic form of todays up and in)

Usually he had a centre targetting the outside hip of a defender and a second shorter option targetting the inside hip of a defender---he could vary the outcome through double pumps, holding back the ball going short or looking to go short and passing long. Or showing the ball outside oversliding the defensive line and slipping it inside---prefectly disguised in good hand and body structure at point of delivery.

 

[DSM5]

All this stuff is very interesting, though the berries won on the back of an error by us (first try), and a bounce back off the sticks (difficult to defend, if not impossible). Two tries. I thought our defensive structure was adequate, although I also felt that Glenn fell off a few tackles that he ordinarily would have nailed. Probably due to his extended layoff. Missing Brett's defensive calls didn't help our cause either. He would also have been backing up the two breaks that would have lead to tries. The problem for us going forward is missing this key player, and the shaky defense of our wingers. Everything else is entirely manageable.

 

[DSM5]

All this stuff is very interesting, though the berries won on the back of an error by us (first try), and a bounce back off the sticks (difficult to defend, if not impossible). Two tries. I thought our defensive structure was adequate, although I also felt that Glenn fell off a few tackles that he ordinarily would have nailed. Probably due to his extended layoff. Missing Brett's defensive calls didn't help our cause either. He would also have been backing up the two breaks that would have lead to tries. The problem for us going forward is missing this key player, and the shaky defense of our wingers. Everything else is entirely manageable.

 

[quinny]

Some decent points relating to "lazy attack" TC, but footy is not quite as scientific as you are making out.
More bodies in motion, option runners & depth is the key - attitude.
As for the importance of 1 player - yes Brett Stewart, unfortunately IS that important to Manly - equally in attack & defence & off the ball communication.
If your point is execution comes secondary to laying a platform, it has merit. This is why teams like Tigers /NZ fall apart - they dont earn the right to play wide because they have not done the hard yards in the middle. This hinders timing & leads to poor execution.
Lets be fair, the game last week was lost on the back of a couple of inexperienced errors at key moments. The game was won physically & many opportunities were not converted .....or executed.

You hit it mate "Off the ball communication" Brett runs our attack in the red zone....you can't just duplicate it with another player short term. Our attack is looking a little "predictable" even when he is there. Other teams have upped the ante-and we need some "new" vision from the coaching staff....Dessie was good at that. Pioneering-not following!!!

 

[quinny]

Some decent points relating to "lazy attack" TC, but footy is not quite as scientific as you are making out.
More bodies in motion, option runners & depth is the key - attitude.
As for the importance of 1 player - yes Brett Stewart, unfortunately IS that important to Manly - equally in attack & defence & off the ball communication.
If your point is execution comes secondary to laying a platform, it has merit. This is why teams like Tigers /NZ fall apart - they dont earn the right to play wide because they have not done the hard yards in the middle. This hinders timing & leads to poor execution.
Lets be fair, the game last week was lost on the back of a couple of inexperienced errors at key moments. The game was won physically & many opportunities were not converted .....or executed.

You hit it mate "Off the ball communication" Brett runs our attack in the red zone....you can't just duplicate it with another player short term. Our attack is looking a little "predictable" even when he is there. Other teams have upped the ante-and we need some "new" vision from the coaching staff....Dessie was good at that. Pioneering-not following!!!