Re: Tom burgess : Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:30 pm  

thebloodbath wrote:

Davidson's body shape for a professional conditioner is interesting.......

He's lithe and athletic compared to most professional swimming coaches.

Re: Tom burgess : Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:43 pm  

Biff Tannen wrote:

Although i agree with you regards comparing with George, i thought Tom showed what he is capable of when he really shone in the test series at the end of last year. Like you say, he is probably not worth as much as he is on, but i would wager another NRL team will give him something close. his best years are yet to come for me and a move away from the 'Burgess Souths cocoon' may do him the world of good.

He has a better offload than george though, so he might benefit from playing under a coach who encourages more enterprising play

Re: Tom burgess : Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:46 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The conditioning needs freshening up - Davidson looks like yesterdays man using yesterdays techniques

But last season the conditioning seemed spot on.

Re: Tom burgess : Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:09 pm  

Him wrote:

But last season the conditioning seemed spot on.

Ah, the Kirke effect strikes again.

Re: Tom burgess : Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:45 pm  

Him wrote:

But last season the conditioning seemed spot on.

The conditioning isn't a problem. We look knackered more in games because we aren't dominating them like we did last year.

Unable to win collisions in defence and having to defend constant quick PTB's, handling errors in our own half gifting teams easy ball near our line, poor last tackle options meaning we either produced a poor kick or didn't get a kick away at all meaning we weren't making teams go 80/90m against us.....all reasons why you end up looking more knackered in games.

We've started winning collisions, whilst still not great our last tackle plays/kicks have been a bit better and low and behold we've had the energy to win games late on in the last few weeks.

Re: Tom burgess : Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:03 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

The conditioning isn't a problem. We look knackered more in games because we aren't dominating them like we did last year.

Unable to win collisions in defence and having to defend constant quick PTB's, handling errors in our own half gifting teams easy ball near our line, poor last tackle options meaning we either produced a poor kick or didn't get a kick away at all meaning we weren't making teams go 80/90m against us.....all reasons why you end up looking more knackered in games.

We've started winning collisions, whilst still not great our last tackle plays/kicks have been a bit better and low and behold we've had the energy to win games late on in the last few weeks.

I agree that the bigger issue is likely to be the fact we're winning collisions and play the balls and have a hooker who helps in that regard.

We probably can't entirely discount an issue with the conditioning but we don't really know either way.

However my point was that if the conditioning this year is wrong, then last year it must've been right. So it would seem a knee-jerk reaction to get rid of a highly valued member of the team at Headingley, based solely on this season.

Re: Tom burgess : Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:31 pm  

Let the ball do the work. Obviously not in defence but the more possession you have, the harder the opposition has to work to shut down plays and the more points you score the fitter everyone looks.
Hit it one up all the time in easily anticipated runs, drop it a lot and kick poorly and you end up very tired.

Re: Tom burgess : Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:42 pm  

DHM wrote:

Let the ball do the work. Obviously not in defence but the more possession you have, the harder the opposition has to work to shut down plays and the more points you score the fitter everyone looks.
Hit it one up all the time in easily anticipated runs, drop it a lot and kick poorly and you end up very tired.

Yep