The Anthony Seibold Grievances MEGA THREAD

Rocky said:
You don't know the contract terms, so you have no basis to say it is ridiculous.

He was on minimum this year so best guess that's what he is signed for in the future.
Click to expand...
Wrong!!! I do have basis that it is ridiculous giving him 3 years,because it is my opinion,you may have a different opinion,which is fine.But I think you’re off the mark if you think he’s extended for 3 years on minimum
 
Never like him as being signed as our coach
Nothing has changed my opinion of this decision this year
He hasn’t improved us at all and we will never get a top 4 finish with him at the helm
He just doesn’t inspire me with any confidence or passion for the joint
Each to there own on here defending him but until Penn family and coach decide to sell and leave we are getting within title for many years and maybe decades to come.
 
Nordburg said:
Wrong!!! I do have basis that it is ridiculous giving him 3 years,because it is my opinion,you may have a different opinion,which is fine.But I think you’re off the mark if you think he’s extended for 3 years on minimum
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Corey Waddell and Manly know his worth. That was established last year. If you think he wouldn't sign a 3-year contract at around the same rate then you are off the mark.

Thats enough talk of Waddell for me today.
 
Disco said:
But despite the hysteria our defence has actually improved year on year the last two years.
Click to expand...
I don't mean this as a knock against Seibs specifically, but while the numbers may suggest our defence has improved, it still doesn't pass the "eye test".

We are not a good defensive team by any measure. If we are the "6th best" defensive team in the NRL, heaven help the 11 teams who are worse than us. Good defensive teams - even average defensive teams - do not give up 30 straight points to the Tigers.

Defence is an afterthought for our players, and has been for years. We never control the ruck, our marker defence is woeful, and our edge defence is questionable on both sides of the field. When momentum turns against us, we start turning our backs, fail to get to the marker position, and panic when attacking players point their fingers at us. If we have defensive "systems" to fall back on, I am yet to see our players put them into action.

Yes, Seibold inherited this, but he's the coach, and it's up to him to fix it.

I have said it elsewhere, but we simply have no desire or ability to defend for more than one set at a time - which is a big problem in the modern NRL where "six agains" come with monotonous regularity. For us to win, we need to hang onto the ball and keep scoring tries. It is our only path to victory. So when that doesn't happen - usually because we turn the ball over, invariably followed by a string of penalties against us - we are done.

It still concerns me that Seibold's emphasis on "using our weapons" (which, as @LeonardCohen has pointed out elsewhere, is really only one weapon: speed) seemingly comes at the expense of concentrating on our defence. Those weapons are great if you get an opportunity to use them, but it still feels like there is no Plan B in sight.
 
Ron E. Gibbs said:
I don't mean this as a knock against Seibs specifically, but while the numbers may suggest our defence has improved, it still doesn't pass the "eye test".

We are not a good defensive team by any measure. If we are the "6th best" defensive team in the NRL, heaven help the 11 teams who are worse than us. Good defensive teams - even average defensive teams - do not give up 30 straight points to the Tigers.

Defence is an afterthought for our players, and has been for years. We never control the ruck, our marker defence is woeful, and our edge defence is questionable on both sides of the field. When momentum turns against us, we start turning our backs, fail to get to the marker position, and panic when attacking players point their fingers at us. If we have defensive "systems" to fall back on, I am yet to see our players put them into action.

Yes, Seibold inherited this, but he's the coach, and it's up to him to fix it.

I have said it elsewhere, but we simply have no desire or ability to defend for more than one set at a time - which is a big problem in the modern NRL where "six agains" come with monotonous regularity. For us to win, we need to hang onto the ball and keep scoring tries. It is our only path to victory. So when that doesn't happen - usually because we turn the ball over, invariably followed by a string of penalties against us - we are done.

It still concerns me that Seibold's emphasis on "using our weapons" (which, as @LeonardCohen has pointed out elsewhere, is really only one weapon: speed) seemingly comes at the expense of concentrating on our defence. Those weapons are great if you get an opportunity to use them, but it still feels like there is no Plan B in sight.
Click to expand...

Great post
 
Ron E. Gibbs said:
I don't mean this as a knock against Seibs specifically, but while the numbers may suggest our defence has improved, it still doesn't pass the "eye test".

We are not a good defensive team by any measure. If we are the "6th best" defensive team in the NRL, heaven help the 11 teams who are worse than us. Good defensive teams - even average defensive teams - do not give up 30 straight points to the Tigers.

Defence is an afterthought for our players, and has been for years. We never control the ruck, our marker defence is woeful, and our edge defence is questionable on both sides of the field. When momentum turns against us, we start turning our backs, fail to get to the marker position, and panic when attacking players point their fingers at us. If we have defensive "systems" to fall back on, I am yet to see our players put them into action.

Yes, Seibold inherited this, but he's the coach, and it's up to him to fix it.

I have said it elsewhere, but we simply have no desire or ability to defend for more than one set at a time - which is a big problem in the modern NRL where "six agains" come with monotonous regularity. For us to win, we need to hang onto the ball and keep scoring tries. It is our only path to victory. So when that doesn't happen - usually because we turn the ball over, invariably followed by a string of penalties against us - we are done.

It still concerns me that Seibold's emphasis on "using our weapons" (which, as @LeonardCohen has pointed out elsewhere, is really only one weapon: speed) seemingly comes at the expense of concentrating on our defence. Those weapons are great if you get an opportunity to use them, but it still feels like there is no Plan B in sight.
Click to expand...
My implication is not that we are some defensive juggernaut, but we have improved.

We can have both improved and also need improvement.

And you can talk eye test or cherry pick games and scenarios but the only real measure of defensive improvement is the numbers.

Also the argument of conceding 34 against the Tigers rings hollow when there are 3 sin binnings.

Would love to see averaging points conceded for teams who play a man down for 30 plus minutes.

Overall, we certainly have an issue maintaining composure when things go against us and we struggle to halt momentum. We need to improve our defense no doubt.

But the narrative that our defense hasnt improved the last two years is just a blatant mistruth
 
Ron E. Gibbs said:
I don't mean this as a knock against Seibs specifically, but while the numbers may suggest our defence has improved, it still doesn't pass the "eye test".

We are not a good defensive team by any measure. If we are the "6th best" defensive team in the NRL, heaven help the 11 teams who are worse than us. Good defensive teams - even average defensive teams - do not give up 30 straight points to the Tigers.

Defence is an afterthought for our players, and has been for years. We never control the ruck, our marker defence is woeful, and our edge defence is questionable on both sides of the field. When momentum turns against us, we start turning our backs, fail to get to the marker position, and panic when attacking players point their fingers at us. If we have defensive "systems" to fall back on, I am yet to see our players put them into action.

Yes, Seibold inherited this, but he's the coach, and it's up to him to fix it.

I have said it elsewhere, but we simply have no desire or ability to defend for more than one set at a time - which is a big problem in the modern NRL where "six agains" come with monotonous regularity. For us to win, we need to hang onto the ball and keep scoring tries. It is our only path to victory. So when that doesn't happen - usually because we turn the ball over, invariably followed by a string of penalties against us - we are done.

It still concerns me that Seibold's emphasis on "using our weapons" (which, as @LeonardCohen has pointed out elsewhere, is really only one weapon: speed) seemingly comes at the expense of concentrating on our defence. Those weapons are great if you get an opportunity to use them, but it still feels like there is no Plan B in sight.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you’ve posted this because it speaks directly to a point I made earlier (but I couldn’t explain it as well as you have) that our ‘lapses’ are football related, not complacency or sports psychology related).

In other words, unless we can keep the ball away from the opposition and sustain momentum, we will come unstuck because there is little else to fall back on. Invariably in games, there are so many mitigating circumstances that it’s almost impossible to sustain momentum for 80 minutes. The current interpretation of the rules doesn’t allow for it. So when those swings happen, our lack of dominance around the ruck is exposed and we leak points.

It’s not complacency, it’s momentum and our footballing cannot combat it. Unless everything falls into place or we get lucky with an opposition falling apart of their own volition, we are in for a scrap.
 
Disco said:
My implication is not that we are some defensive juggernaut, but we have improved.

We can have both improved and also need improvement.

And you can talk eye test or cherry pick games and scenarios but the only real measure of defensive improvement is the numbers.

Also the argument of conceding 34 against the Tigers rings hollow when there are 3 sin binnings.

Would love to see averaging points conceded for teams who play a man down for 30 plus minutes.

Overall, we certainly have an issue maintaining composure when things go against us and we struggle to halt momentum. We need to improve our defense no doubt.

But the narrative that our defense hasnt improved the last two years is just a blatant mistruth
Click to expand...
Imagine if the Tigers had suffered from three separate sin bins in that game and Manly none?

I wonder what the scoreline might have been?

Manly still managed to score tries when they were down to 12. Then during Bullemor’s stint ‘ashore’, they did not concede any points.
 
mickqld said:
Seibold should've called out that joke referee performance. Yes we played sh*t but when you look at what's happened in other games so far this weekend that was as blatant a match fixing effort as ever.
Click to expand...
Blatent is far too light a word, “ glaringly obvious “ springs to mind.

The ref got completely sucked into the emotion of the venue & the night.

Oh sure we were **** , but we only became **** when the life was screwed out of the game.

Firstly he tried to arrest the natural flow of the game , then he lost control of the game and it then became a war , him V the Manly players.
 
Mark from Brisbane said:
Blatent is far too light a word, “ glaringly obvious “ springs to mind.

The ref got completely sucked into the emotion of the venue & the night.

Oh sure we were ** , but we only became ** when the life was screwed out of the game.

Firstly he tried to arrest the natural flow of the game , then he lost control of the game and it then became a war , him V the Manly players.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree, it still didn't excuse the woeful defense that let Garner stroll through the middle nor the non attempt to catch the cross kick that gave them another try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Members online

Total: 357 (members: 13, guests: 344)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Online statistics

Members online
13
Guests online
344
Total visitors
357
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom