Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:44 pm  

we have lost a lot of rugby attacking knowledge with these to going and i think we lack attacking ideas and we need to replace these guy guy with some one of the same quality what say you lot
and why do you think we haven't done this yet

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:50 pm  

Just watching a few videos of the Cowboys ought to suffice!

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:28 pm  

This has been discussed on a number of occasions. I know others aren't but I happy with Wane unless one of the top draw coaches from the NRL fancies a crack over here. That said I think some fresh ideas would benefit the team and bringing in an assistant to do this would be a good idea.

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:35 pm  

Our resident experts tell us that we are still on the same plays that Madge put in place... So, if thats the case, you have to ask what did Deacon and Harris actually do? I think we should get Sinfield in as assistant...

Playing devils advocate here...

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:11 am  

Wigan Peer wrote:

I think we should get Sinfield in as assistant...

Playing devils advocate here...

In a heartbeat -but I suspect he will be at Leeds before long in some capacity.

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:41 pm  

Wigan Peer wrote:

Our resident experts tell us that we are still on the same plays that Madge put in place... So, if thats the case, you have to ask what did Deacon and Harris actually do? I think we should get Sinfield in as assistant...

Playing devils advocate here...

I would be very happy with sinfied but I think we definitely need some new attacking ideas

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Sun May 01, 2016 1:29 pm  

Wigan Peer wrote:

Our resident experts tell us that we are still on the same plays that Madge put in place... So, if thats the case, you have to ask what did Deacon and Harris actually do? I think we should get Sinfield in as assistant...

Playing devils advocate here...

You're on the same plays that every team in rugby league use - lead man hitting an 'in' line with a man out the back. The value of a coach is making these plays run well (for example by changing the width/depth/timing), or changing your structure slightly by running it from different areas of the pitch. Maybe this is what Deacon and Harris did?

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Mon May 02, 2016 10:17 am  

Our attack went stale a few years back when the referees got silly with their interpretation of the obstruction rule. Wane at the time stated that we would have to change our attacking structure to avoid having tries disallowed. We then used less/no decoy runners making our attack far easier to read, hence the reliance on passing the ball wing to wing or relying on kicks.

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Mon May 02, 2016 10:35 am  

dr_feelgood wrote:

Our attack went stale a few years back when the referees got silly with their interpretation of the obstruction rule. Wane at the time stated that we would have to change our attacking structure to avoid having tries disallowed. We then used less/no decoy runners making our attack far easier to read, hence the reliance on passing the ball wing to wing or relying on kicks.

That's the problem tbh - we haven't learnt any new attacking plays in 2 years. As I posted after the Cas game, we have 3 plays; swing it out wide and hope for the best (i.e. defender to make a bad read), an inside pass and a kick to the opposition centre. That's everything we have.

If somehow the injured players manage to bring some set plays and attacking structure back with them, we might have a chance for the GF...

Re: Do we need replace Paul Deacon & Iestyn Harris : Mon May 02, 2016 1:58 pm  

The knotty issue of obstruction seems to be raising it's ugly head in the NRL again in the last few weeks. But is a few disallowed tries reason enough to stop using dummy runners?

Seems to me that in most (not all cases), tries are disallowed when dummy runners either stop in the defensive line, or, worse, run into defenders. This gives refs an easy option to disallow, even if the defender inconvenienced was in reality, 'never going to get there'. If dummy runners made sure they ran through gaps, not into defenders, they'd have much more chance. Of course, this doesn't overcome the issue of defenders themselves deliberately colliding with dummy runners to get tries disallowed (hi, Joel Tomkins ), but if the dummy runners were whiter than white, it might make matters a lot clearer.