The real issue
- Thread starter susan
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
The Who
Journey Man
Very well made points, Susan, which I basically agree with. Bashing other teams into submission comes at a price to your own team, so it can't be sustained for more than a portion of the season.
Did anyone notice how this game mirrored our loss to the Titans? We were behind 2-nill at half time after playing tough and defending well. Fa'aoso was reported in that game. Then, shortly after half-time, we were down 14-nil before fighting back with a Tom Symonds try. Unfortunately against Souffs Tom's try was disallowed. We finished over the top of both teams and should have won both matches. It was the 10 minutes directly after half-time that lost us both games.
Over to TC to explain why and outline how we overcome this lapse.
Did anyone notice how this game mirrored our loss to the Titans? We were behind 2-nill at half time after playing tough and defending well. Fa'aoso was reported in that game. Then, shortly after half-time, we were down 14-nil before fighting back with a Tom Symonds try. Unfortunately against Souffs Tom's try was disallowed. We finished over the top of both teams and should have won both matches. It was the 10 minutes directly after half-time that lost us both games.
Over to TC to explain why and outline how we overcome this lapse.
TC hit the nail on the head with the point about not getting points from our usually great starts in the big games. This is invariably the reason for our indiscipline in these clashes.
Also the difference between controlled aggression and uncontrolled is not a fine one as some suggest. In my opinion, it is massive difference. Controlled aggression is a pre thought out part of a game plan,uncontrolled aggression is a reaction to adverse events on the field at the expense of the game plan. Could anyone who seriously watched that game not come to the conclusion that it cruelled us totally. Down 20 nil and ahead in virtually every statistical department.You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out.
Sorry don't buy this stuff as Kiwi suggests that this is our usual modus operandi.When we are playing great our aggression comes in the form upping the ante via legal bone crunching defence at key moments in games-Gould refers to this a lot in his praise of Manly's recent record.Spear tackling,elbowing and rushing wildly out of the line isn''t the sort of aggression that wins big games.Indeed it may lose a couple more as well if the judiciary wield the axe.
Also to another of Kiwis points that we would have beaten most teams Friday night.He is right but so what. Beating the bottom 13 teams doesn''t win a comp,beating the Bunnies and the scum does and that is what matters,the rest is irrelevant in the big picture.
Also this is not a bagging of our team.I think we have the best side in the comp and with a bit more thought we can grab another title and I''m sure Tooves will address it.Possibly playing next week with a second string side will be an ample reminder.
Also the difference between controlled aggression and uncontrolled is not a fine one as some suggest. In my opinion, it is massive difference. Controlled aggression is a pre thought out part of a game plan,uncontrolled aggression is a reaction to adverse events on the field at the expense of the game plan. Could anyone who seriously watched that game not come to the conclusion that it cruelled us totally. Down 20 nil and ahead in virtually every statistical department.You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out.
Sorry don't buy this stuff as Kiwi suggests that this is our usual modus operandi.When we are playing great our aggression comes in the form upping the ante via legal bone crunching defence at key moments in games-Gould refers to this a lot in his praise of Manly's recent record.Spear tackling,elbowing and rushing wildly out of the line isn''t the sort of aggression that wins big games.Indeed it may lose a couple more as well if the judiciary wield the axe.
Also to another of Kiwis points that we would have beaten most teams Friday night.He is right but so what. Beating the bottom 13 teams doesn''t win a comp,beating the Bunnies and the scum does and that is what matters,the rest is irrelevant in the big picture.
Also this is not a bagging of our team.I think we have the best side in the comp and with a bit more thought we can grab another title and I''m sure Tooves will address it.Possibly playing next week with a second string side will be an ample reminder.
susan said:
I will just stick to this part.
As I have said a few times, Fa'aoso spear tackles has absolutely nothing to do with the extra aggression for me, it was technique, he wasn't going in there to smash. Brett's elbow was stupidity
Tbh I didn't think we strayed far outside the normal come in and rattle them type of aggro that we toss up every week. And the rushing up and putting a hit on is definitely seen most weeks and has been a tactic that has been successful more often than not over the years. Matai coming in for his shot like that, has worked for us many times over the years in producing a turnover, and it was more bad luck more than bad management that brought the penalty for that one, but that could be debated.
And I also think that type of play has won us big games, namely that Dogs one last year I mentioned earlier. Think back to 2010 finals and a huge shot from Dwyer on JWH proved the difference etc, so it does work on occasions, it's just easier for us to pinpoint when we lose a game and are searching for the reasons why
If we were smashing them high all night and gave away multiple penalties from it, I could understand the criticism of that approach more
anthonyb1965
GO Manly
If Symonds try is awarded, we win the game, I don't buy the rest.
Kiwi how many penalties for high shots/elbows/spear tackles etc do you regard as too much. Without even thinking about it I can remember at least 6(3 spears,Bretts elbow,Matai high shot, another first half high shot on our left side).Given the average penalties to a team each week for all offenses is 7 or 8,then what we dished up is way over the odds.
Also drawing a very long bow to say if Symonds try is awarded we win. Souths attitude in defense at 14-6 in all likelihood would have differed immensely from a comfortable 20 nil up with 20 to go.
They were more clinical and deserved the win but we have a lot more improvement in us than they do.
Also drawing a very long bow to say if Symonds try is awarded we win. Souths attitude in defense at 14-6 in all likelihood would have differed immensely from a comfortable 20 nil up with 20 to go.
They were more clinical and deserved the win but we have a lot more improvement in us than they do.
susan said:
You're misreading that mate. Penalty count was too high
You blame extra aggression for that, majority of the penalties don't come down to that extra aggression for me. Richies spears were nothing to do with aggro, but I have made that point before
Napper
Bencher
You lost me at "stevie needs to calm down"
The amount of times this bloke has changed the whole momentum of a match due to aggressive defence or running is probably higher than any player in the nrl.
As a manly fan we want him on the park every match. I'd rather see him keep walking that fine line every game at risk of a few weeks suspension every year. Without his aggression he isn't the player we love/need in the team.
He is easily the best centre in the game behind killer.
If he was an Aussie he would have partnered Inglis in the Anzac test.
If he wasn't penalised for the Burgess tackle(which was a ridiculous penalty) we would have won the match from that play alone.
The amount of times this bloke has changed the whole momentum of a match due to aggressive defence or running is probably higher than any player in the nrl.
As a manly fan we want him on the park every match. I'd rather see him keep walking that fine line every game at risk of a few weeks suspension every year. Without his aggression he isn't the player we love/need in the team.
He is easily the best centre in the game behind killer.
If he was an Aussie he would have partnered Inglis in the Anzac test.
If he wasn't penalised for the Burgess tackle(which was a ridiculous penalty) we would have won the match from that play alone.
No way I want him to stop his aggression but simply put the odds more in his favour than he is now..When a player with his record gives himself 3 inches of leeway in regards to getting rubbed our for a season it does not make sense. Make no mistake,if he was 3 inches higher he was looking at the season.It would have been treated as a pre-meditated,intentional head shot from a serial offender and would have probably broken his jaw.One thing that people forget and the reason I am banging on about this is that we are a side with absolutely ZERO depth in our outside backs-they are absolute plodders in reserve grade. It is absolutely essential he stays on the field-he is too valuable.Anyone seriously think we can win a comp without him.His performances in the 3 GFS have been unbelieveable.
Steve is a seasoned international league player.I cant believe he cant make a slight adjustment and still play with his usual venom.People seem to think he iether plays exactly the same as now or he becomes a priest on the field.All that is required is slightly more control while still maintaining his intimidation.
Steve is a seasoned international league player.I cant believe he cant make a slight adjustment and still play with his usual venom.People seem to think he iether plays exactly the same as now or he becomes a priest on the field.All that is required is slightly more control while still maintaining his intimidation.
There are some really valid points being made throughout this thread.
But imagine this....Snake actually advances the ball a fraction more and scores. Jorge looks inside and picks up Snake who scores under the posts. Wolfie's centreing kick goes a little more sideways and Foz scores instead of the ball going dead.
It would have been 18-0 at half time and we wouldn't be debating any of this. Yes I know, but none of these things happened. But the fact is sometimes things don't go your way and that's just footy.
I saw enough on Friday night to think we have Souths measure.
But imagine this....Snake actually advances the ball a fraction more and scores. Jorge looks inside and picks up Snake who scores under the posts. Wolfie's centreing kick goes a little more sideways and Foz scores instead of the ball going dead.
It would have been 18-0 at half time and we wouldn't be debating any of this. Yes I know, but none of these things happened. But the fact is sometimes things don't go your way and that's just footy.
I saw enough on Friday night to think we have Souths measure.
Jatz Crackers
First Grader
The whole debate about controlled aggression seems a bit tenuous for mine, so I wont enter into it.
But I will make this point about Matai. Matai has already toned down his style of play, he did so after after the last time he found himself in a precarious position with the judiciary.
The fact is two inches lower and that hit does not bounce upwards and with such an unsure margin for error, who is to say that some knee jerk reactional change to his approach will make any positive difference.
I lean fairly & squarely to Nappers view on Matai.
But I will make this point about Matai. Matai has already toned down his style of play, he did so after after the last time he found himself in a precarious position with the judiciary.
The fact is two inches lower and that hit does not bounce upwards and with such an unsure margin for error, who is to say that some knee jerk reactional change to his approach will make any positive difference.
I lean fairly & squarely to Nappers view on Matai.
MWSE
Bencher
Im sure plenty of that aggressive play came out of frustration at failing to puncture the Souths defence (which was awesome, especially out wide where Tooves had obviously wanted to target).
I think we lost the game last night because:
-To lateral in attack, especially out wide.
-Kite trying to be a ball playing forward again.
-Lyon losing the battle against Goodwin.
-Gifty looking a bit lost in his first game back.
-Most importantly Souths managed to slow the play of the ball down far better than we did.
-And finally because the bounce of the ball just didn't go our way at all on the kicks.
I think we lost the game last night because:
-To lateral in attack, especially out wide.
-Kite trying to be a ball playing forward again.
-Lyon losing the battle against Goodwin.
-Gifty looking a bit lost in his first game back.
-Most importantly Souths managed to slow the play of the ball down far better than we did.
-And finally because the bounce of the ball just didn't go our way at all on the kicks.
I really dont see the reason to be so concerned at this stage. The Manly team are still transitioning from the Des game to the tooves game. The physical game of Des was required with his stat based game, based on completion rates and field position.
Tooves is trying to take the team much further with attack. We need to remember while tooves has had 2 seasons he has only had 1 real off season
I think we are seeing the mid point. The team obviously feels confident enough to take them on with the ball, and when it does and it will the mean D will just be a bonus. They play what they see not just revolve around a series of set plays that work. Let them go and if they crack it, the team will be much more formidable and harder to defend against.
I just struggle to see how they are as linked as people make out
Tooves is trying to take the team much further with attack. We need to remember while tooves has had 2 seasons he has only had 1 real off season
I think we are seeing the mid point. The team obviously feels confident enough to take them on with the ball, and when it does and it will the mean D will just be a bonus. They play what they see not just revolve around a series of set plays that work. Let them go and if they crack it, the team will be much more formidable and harder to defend against.
I just struggle to see how they are as linked as people make out
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
7 | 6 | 1 | 54 | 14 |
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 59 | 12 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 53 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 10 |
|
7 | 4 | 2 | 25 | 9 |
|
8 | 4 | 4 | 73 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 40 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 24 | 8 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -8 | 8 |
|
8 | 4 | 4 | -60 | 8 |
|
8 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 7 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | -41 | 6 |
|
7 | 2 | 5 | -29 | 4 |
|
7 | 1 | 6 | -87 | 4 |
|
7 | 1 | 6 | -136 | 4 |
