Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Better - but still a lot of improvement needed

Crushercleal

Active Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
1,065
While I was ecstatic with the win, and cheered hoarse for 40 min from the Hill (the other 40 min was shouting abuse at Hapstead, who has no sense of what holding-down in the tackle means), let's be honest - a decent team would have hammered us tonight. Here are the problems:
1. Absolutely zero structure in attack. We don't know what to do near the tryline. We have no set moves, no decoy runners, and no last tackle kicking options.
2. Kite and King largely ineffective. They don't have an impact on the game in attack. Cuthbo was far more impressive in my opinion. He can make metres, and actually offloads. He HAS to start.
3. Dropped balls. Why do we drop so much?
What we did well:
1. Defence near the line - was much better in the 2nd half
2. Bell - he has to get more ball. Why did he barely touch it for 40 min?
3. Halves/hookers - looked much more balanced with less chopping and changing.
 

easystreet

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
181
The defence seems to be improving each week,but there was still far too much drop ball,especially in the first half.
 

Ryan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
18,993
Mate - I thought the Sharks had a pretty handy team on the park:-

Albert - Grand Final Winner
Kimmorley - Aust. 1/2 back once
Dykes - Experience +
Ross - SOO
Bailey - SOO
Simmons - Was well contained

etc etc...
 

KaZa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
2,250
I think the problem is the same as last year. Monas was the only option... and it seems Orford is the same option. Burns is a good player.. but he hasnt been helping out alot in attack.. credit to the kid in the 2nd half he got more involved and was better for it. But first half he was non existent. He has to realise.. hes got to take some pressure off Orford..

I liked how the Sharks used their fullback in attack.. its the sort of play we should have for Stewy.
 

Garts

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
5,621
Burns was non existant in the 1st half as we spent the majority of it trying to get out of our own half. The kid will improve every game!!!
 

earl

Active Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
1,151
We need orford to control the game. If he can do 50% of what Johns did on Friday night were in with a good show.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Mate - I thought the Sharks had a pretty handy team on the park:-

Albert - Grand Final Winner
Kimmorley - Aust. 1/2 back once
Dykes - Experience +
Ross - SOO
Bailey - SOO
Simmons - Was well contained

etc etc...
Alberts best days were years ago. he has lost a lot of speed and is pretty ordinary.
Kimmorley - suffered a groin strain last night ans was really a passenger for most of the game
Dykes - Ok in attack but again his best days were years ago before he left to go to Parra
Ross - suffered a badly broken nose and possible busted cheekbone which effected his play
Baily - this guys is rubbish and overrated
Simmons - ditto.

Also no vagana, gallen or Pomery.

In reaility we should have smahsed this team by 20 points. We just have no structure in the teams plays whether it be defence of attack. We rely too much on individual brilliance from bell and stewart to score our tries.

No wonder des and orford have had a disagreement. Orford no doubt wants to structure our attack while des is saying no lets keep it as a dogs breakfast.
 

Corso_Pete

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
1,482
Alberts best days were years ago. he has lost a lot of speed and is pretty ordinary.
Kimmorley - suffered a groin strain last night ans was really a passenger for most of the game
Dykes - Ok in attack but again his best days were years ago before he left to go to Parra
Ross - suffered a badly broken nose and possible busted cheekbone which effected his play
Baily - this guys is rubbish and overrated
Simmons - ditto.

Also no vagana, gallen or Pomery.

In reaility we should have smahsed this team by 20 points. We just have no structure in the teams plays whether it be defence of attack. We rely too much on individual brilliance from bell and stewart to score our tries.

No wonder des and orford have had a disagreement. Orford no doubt wants to structure our attack while des is saying no lets keep it as a dogs breakfast.
I agree with you Tookey, I thought that the Sharks team minus Vagana at Brookie, should have been easy pickings for us and I expected a convincing win. Our lack of structure in attack is most concering, other than Bell we really seem to have little hope of scoring tries.

Would you like to expand on the Orford/Hasler disagreement. I have not heard of this before.
 

Garts

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
5,621
I have little confidence in our attack at the moment, I am hoping it will just click all of a sudden.

The Raiders have had 130 points put on them in 2 games, we could only manage 14 :doh:
 

earl

Active Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
1,151
Early days , Early days,
Just saw the replay on the news. What a great movement for Bells try.
Great vision from Burns , and Steve bell , well , i think he is a better buy than Orford.
Only good days ahead. !pray:
 

2020 Ladder

Team P W D L PD Pts
1 Panthers 20 18 1 1 299 37
2 Storm 20 16 0 4 258 32
3 Eels 20 15 0 5 104 30
4 Roosters 20 14 0 6 230 28
5 Raiders 20 14 0 6 128 28
6 Rabbitohs 20 12 0 8 169 24
7 Knights 20 11 1 8 47 23
8 Sharks 20 10 0 10 0 20
9 Titans 20 9 0 11 -117 18
10 Warriors 20 8 0 12 -115 16
11 Tigers 20 7 0 13 -65 14
12 Dragons 20 7 0 13 -74 14
13 Sea Eagles 20 7 0 13 -134 14
14 Cowboys 20 5 0 15 -152 10
15 Bulldogs 20 3 0 17 -222 6
16 Broncos 20 3 0 17 -356 6
Top Bottom