Intimidation .... ?

  • 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.

Woodsie

Feast yer eyes ..
Tipping Member
Firstly let me say, that I appreciate it is 2017 and not 1971. And that I applaud Baz for eliminating a lot of the nonsense out of our pack and having them play "controlled" football.

BUT ..... I said before yesterday's game that we had to unleash some mongrel and I stand by that comment. Players don't stand and off-load at will if they fear copping one late or around the chops.

I would happily give away 2/3 penalties a game as the result of good hard aggression and intimidation than the 2/3 penalties we are giving away for holding down because we didn't whack the son-of-a-bitch hard enough in the first place.

I am not talking dog acts here ... just good old fashion intimidation. Time to unleash Kapow, Darcy, AFB (Fuk he has been on a chain) and Lawrence. Teach Winterstein and Perrett to get angry and Lane to grow a pair. Jake, leave alone, he will do what he does and that is good enough.

No team will go far into the semi's unless there pack is feared and respected. We have the players ... we need to loosen the leash and release some mongrel.

But then, I might be wrong .... it isn't 1971 ... or is it.
 
After the hand wringing that went on following William G Slater's incident on Saturday night, yesterday was not the day to be unleashing aggression. The National Reactionary League was all primed to crucify the first poor person to commit an act of foul play - someone had to pay for Bill getting injured.
 
In a lot of ways I say well done to Darcy Lussick for standing up for his team captain like he did. Unfortunately how he did it was against the rules so it wasn't the smartest thing to do, but I'd much rather have seen him do what he did (more so considering De Belin's elbow that started it all) than just point to the player and whinge to the ref which would have achieved nothing.

We may have played crap for all but about 15 minutes yesterday, but Lussick's action showed that our players stand up for each other.
 
I think a lot has to do with the modern tackling style. Apart from Jake who cuts players down in an 'old school' style, most other tackles involve holding a player up, to slow down things. This gives more freedom to the ball carrier to offload. Yesterday Illawarra did this continually. That's what killed us - they kept the ball alive. Illawarra also did this to us in the earlier rounds. We learned nothing from that thrashing.
I've noticed so many more offloads this season from all teams. We have been quite good at it, but nothing like Illawarra.
It's time for our defensive coaches to change their thinking. Look how Jake tackles. Hire Matai to be our defensive coach. And instruct the referees to give credit to low tackles, which are steadily becoming a rarity in our sport.
 
I'm up for the intimidation, but the had to shut down the momentum either offloads. Saints are on top of the ladder for offloads (245), whereas as we are (195). So it shouldn't have been a surprise to see Saints offloading at will. We had to get more players around the ball and slow their momentum.
I too am glad Darcy did what he did. The boys got fired up. But it should'nt have come to that. They were off from the kick off.
 
Our defence was unusually flat yesterday. Marty, Winterstein etc were dropping off tackles, and unable to wrap up a ball carrier. We looked tired. Very different to a few weeks back, when WE were the ones standing in tackles and getting second phases underway at will. I recall the Raiders game at Brooky, where Perrett, Marty and co. were unstoppable, even against the biggest pack in history. We need a rest maybe...but we won;t be getting one!
 
I think a lot has to do with the modern tackling style. Apart from Jake who cuts players down in an 'old school' style, most other tackles involve holding a player up, to slow down things. This gives more freedom to the ball carrier to offload. Yesterday Illawarra did this continually. That's what killed us - they kept the ball alive. Illawarra also did this to us in the earlier rounds. We learned nothing from that thrashing.
I've noticed so many more offloads this season from all teams. We have been quite good at it, but nothing like Illawarra.
It's time for our defensive coaches to change their thinking. Look how Jake tackles. Hire Matai to be our defensive coach. And instruct the referees to give credit to low tackles, which are steadily becoming a rarity in our sport.

Low tackles not being rewarded is the single biggest issue in the game imo. It encourages 3 man wrestling techniques, alllows for a super quick ruck, and is slowing phasing out the classical tackling style.

Cut them down one on one and the attacker has all the advantages, despite losing the contest.
I dont have an answer, other than to not allow the attacker the chance to play the ball quickly. But I think the refs cant handle any more rules, we need less, if anything.
 
Firstly let me say, that I appreciate it is 2017 and not 1971. And that I applaud Baz for eliminating a lot of the nonsense out of our pack and having them play "controlled" football.

BUT ..... I said before yesterday's game that we had to unleash some mongrel and I stand by that comment. Players don't stand and off-load at will if they fear copping one late or around the chops.

I would happily give away 2/3 penalties a game as the result of good hard aggression and intimidation than the 2/3 penalties we are giving away for holding down because we didn't whack the son-of-a-bitch hard enough in the first place.

I am not talking dog acts here ... just good old fashion intimidation. Time to unleash Kapow, Darcy, AFB (Fuk he has been on a chain) and Lawrence. Teach Winterstein and Perrett to get angry and Lane to grow a pair. Jake, leave alone, he will do what he does and that is good enough.

No team will go far into the semi's unless there pack is feared and respected. We have the players ... we need to loosen the leash and release some mongrel.

But then, I might be wrong .... it isn't 1971 ... or is it.

Our season was built on intimidation to a point. After some scratchy games, manly turned the corner on the back of defence. Having notable defenders that punished teams, particularly , jake, api, anf myles. Teams got hurt running into the middle

When you added a fired up marty and bj, we were in fact intimidating. Then all of a sudden , points, tries , starting falling from the sky. Maybe we are are a bit cocky and taking some shortcuts after reading our own press.

With mr plod gone , api and bj out, we have lost the men that rattle the opposition. The lanes, perrets are not the same type of player and jake is carrying the can too much.

Marty is a little different. Im not sure if all the judiciary time has scared him off a bit or if he has become a little too preoccupied with his running stats. This is ok when we get 60 % of the ball but not when the opposition does

Our best games probably came after the byes when im sure the team bunkered down and came out firing .

Tomorrow sucked, but its not as dire as many make out. Our injury toll however is a big concern.
 
Our defence was sooo timid yesterday, allowing offloads at will. That was disappointing. Darcy is a hothead and easily put off his game. A cool head when DCE was pushed by De Bellin was needed throwing a punch was so dumb not matter what the provocation. Controlled aggression is what was missing yesterday. I wonder if Marty is carrying an injury because since the Sharks game his form has dipped as has the teams. Six weeks to go and all to play for, I do not expect to beat the drizzle down there but I expect to see a reaction after yesterday. We have winnable games coming up and we realistically need 3 to cement a spot. All to play for!!
 
Our defence was sooo timid yesterday, allowing offloads at will. That was disappointing. Darcy is a hothead and easily put off his game. A cool head when DCE was pushed by De Bellin was needed throwing a punch was so dumb not matter what the provocation. Controlled aggression is what was missing yesterday. I wonder if Marty is carrying an injury because since the Sharks game his form has dipped as has the teams. Six weeks to go and all to play for, I do not expect to beat the drizzle down there but I expect to see a reaction after yesterday. We have winnable games coming up and we realistically need 3 to cement a spot. All to play for!!
Controlled aggression wouldn't have got you three tries in 10 minutes. Darcy's punch was the rocket up the arse the rest of the team needed.
I was hoping he'd come back on and clock someone else.
 
Our defence was unusually flat yesterday. Marty, Winterstein etc were dropping off tackles, and unable to wrap up a ball carrier. We looked tired. Very different to a few weeks back, when WE were the ones standing in tackles and getting second phases underway at will. I recall the Raiders game at Brooky, where Perrett, Marty and co. were unstoppable, even against the biggest pack in history. We need a rest maybe...but we won;t be getting one!

Maybe the 'rest' they're in need of is the training tapering off in the next few weeks. Still thinking it could be fatigue from (deliberate) 'overtraining' that we've been seeing the last few weeks.
 
You have a point, but he was at least instinctive enough yesterday to realise that if you stand back and allow your half back and captain to be rag-dolled .... all respect is lost.

And from the ensueing plays the rest of the team fired up.
Thought we missed Darcy's toughness up front in the starting pack. Perrett is better against tired forwards coming off the bench with his offloads. Have always thought that Lussick does better when starting. His brother should have started at hooker as well IMO. But all's easy to say in hindsight.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom