Re: Grubber kicks : Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:39 am  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

it's the only way coaches know how to score if planned moves don't work.
The game at the moment is run by coaches who need to control everything. It is suffocating the game and if it continues for another few years it will kill it.
Spineless players are also culpable in this.
All the top coaches in previous generations knew that it's players that win matches not coaches.

I'm not sure this is true, I think some of the best coaches i.e. Wayne Bennett gives his players a fair degree of flexibility to play what they see. Even Melbourne Storm have got a lot more freedom in their attack this year.

All teams play with structure but the problem with your attack is you've not changed how you play at all in the last 5 years. Difference being back when Maguire implemented it you had the likes of Hock, Joel Tomkins (before union ruined him) and Hoffman as the lead runner with a really pacey Sam Tomkins out the back who could beat players on the outside. Now your attack has a lead runner that isn't as dangerous, so doesn't attract as many defenders, and a Tomkins less capable of exploiting that space himself. All teams have to do is sit on their heels, don't over-commit and then make the tackle when it reaches your centre.

The reason you the grubber so much is it's an inevitable consequence of getting to 3rd man in from the wing and seeing you have nothing else on because none of the defenders have committed. Given neither of your kickers are brilliant with the boot either, grubbers have a much bigger margin for error than crossfield kicks.

Re: Grubber kicks : Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:35 am  

Any half worth his salt should be able to land a high kick to the corner on a dime. We seem to have given up even trying. Or rather, Smith has, as Williams has never done much high kicking. Whether Smith is under orders to dump the high kicks, I don't know. But it seems daft that, at the very least, we don't mix it up a bit. Especially after Manfredi had demonstrated his superiority over Ryan Hall, catching the ball above his head.

Re: Grubber kicks : Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:41 am  

Saint #1 wrote:

I'm not sure this is true, I think some of the best coaches i.e. Wayne Bennett gives his players a fair degree of flexibility to play what they see. Even Melbourne Storm have got a lot more freedom in their attack this year.

All teams play with structure but the problem with your attack is you've not changed how you play at all in the last 5 years. Difference being back when Maguire implemented it you had the likes of Hock, Joel Tomkins (before union ruined him) and Hoffman as the lead runner with a really pacey Sam Tomkins out the back who could beat players on the outside. Now your attack has a lead runner that isn't as dangerous, so doesn't attract as many defenders, and a Tomkins less capable of exploiting that space himself. All teams have to do is sit on their heels, don't over-commit and then make the tackle when it reaches your centre.

The reason you the grubber so much is it's an inevitable consequence of getting to 3rd man in from the wing and seeing you have nothing else on because none of the defenders have committed. Given neither of your kickers are brilliant with the boot either, grubbers have a much bigger margin for error than crossfield kicks.

I respect your posts because on many occassion you state something that I hadn't thought of and you give detailed and logical rationale however, on this occassion we will have to disagree.
I notice you don't mention one SL coach. For me the game is suffocating due to coaches like SW, KC, Powell et al. The only SL coach who I think lets players play what they see is Smith at Wire.
This type of coaching goes in cycles we need a new coach or two to break this ponderous and pontificating approach to what is really a simple game.

Re: Grubber kicks : Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:47 pm  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

I respect your posts because on many occassion you state something that I hadn't thought of and you give detailed and logical rationale however, on this occassion we will have to disagree.
I notice you don't mention one SL coach. For me the game is suffocating due to coaches like SW, KC, Powell et al. The only SL coach who I think lets players play what they see is Smith at Wire.
This type of coaching goes in cycles we need a new coach or two to break this ponderous and pontificating approach to what is really a simple game.

Oh you flatter me! I think Bennett was the most obvious example, but I'd argue that Powell and McDermott are both pretty liberal coaches (in addition to Smith who you mentioned). Leeds, Wire and Cas are the highest offloaders this year, and I'd say all 3 play a pretty entertaining brand of rugby - even if it isn't always successful.

I think the difference between here and the NRL is that because the defences are much better in the NRL, attacks have to be challenging as many players as possible on as many plays as possible. Andrew Johns was absolutely scathing of St. George Dragon's attack today because they were just working for one or two big plays per set, and this is reflected in them averaging scoring 13 points a game. Saints and Wigan both do the same thing and average 25 and 20 points a game. Teams won't change their bad habits until they stop being rewarded for them.

The other issue I have with the structure complaints is that generally (at least in any team I've played for or coached) any structure has an "override" call. Structure is a framework for players to use until they see a reason to deviate. Go and watch the third try from Cowboys vs Bulldogs in the NRL this weekend. I'm reasonably confident that 4th tackle on an opponent's line (having just spread the ball) Cowboys' structure would generally be to get to the middle of the pitch - keeps the wingers up and gives kicking options both sides of the PTB. Thurston sees something last minute so rushes round to the blind side, gets the ball and creates the try. A poorer halfback (i.e. Smith) would have not seen that, just moved the play to the middle of the pitch, and we would bemoan how stifling the structure is rather than looking at the poor quality halves, who haven't had the vision to see any reason to deviate from that structure.

Re: Grubber kicks : Sun Jul 24, 2016 6:00 pm  

Saint #1 wrote:

Oh you flatter me! I think Bennett was the most obvious example, but I'd argue that Powell and McDermott are both pretty liberal coaches (in addition to Smith who you mentioned). Leeds, Wire and Cas are the highest offloaders this year, and I'd say all 3 play a pretty entertaining brand of rugby - even if it isn't always successful.

I think the difference between here and the NRL is that because the defences are much better in the NRL, attacks have to be challenging as many players as possible on as many plays as possible. Andrew Johns was absolutely scathing of St. George Dragon's attack today because they were just working for one or two big plays per set, and this is reflected in them averaging scoring 13 points a game. Saints and Wigan both do the same thing and average 25 and 20 points a game. Teams won't change their bad habits until they stop being rewarded for them.

The other issue I have with the structure complaints is that generally (at least in any team I've played for or coached) any structure has an "override" call. Structure is a framework for players to use until they see a reason to deviate. Go and watch the third try from Cowboys vs Bulldogs in the NRL this weekend. I'm reasonably confident that 4th tackle on an opponent's line (having just spread the ball) Cowboys' structure would generally be to get to the middle of the pitch - keeps the wingers up and gives kicking options both sides of the PTB. Thurston sees something last minute so rushes round to the blind side, gets the ball and creates the try. A poorer halfback (i.e. Smith) would have not seen that, just moved the play to the middle of the pitch, and we would bemoan how stifling the structure is rather than looking at the poor quality halves, who haven't had the vision to see any reason to deviate from that structure.

The same Powell who played a hooker and a prop at 6?
The coaches tell the halves exactly what they need to when and where. The halves are spineless and just suck up to the coach e.g. Smith
All that coaches concentrate on is the PTB and nothing else matters. Until the RL resolve the TPB issue the quality of the game will continue to decline.

Re: Grubber kicks : Sun Jul 24, 2016 6:03 pm  

FlexWheeler wrote:

It's pretty much the only way you score points these days.

We actually have this tactic nailed and it is almost impossible to defend
Shame that our other attacking options, if we actually have any aren't as fool proof

Re: Grubber kicks : Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:32 am  

We scored off a lot of kicks last season (chipping to Burgess was pretty successful) but this year the little grubber to the corner has been the only way we're looking like scoring. We desperately need an attacking coach IMO. A lot of criticism has been aimed at some of the creative players (completely justified) but we are playing so flat and laboured it's almost impossible to create anything.

It makes me laugh that some of our fans are still moaning about us being too structured and robotic when the problem is the complete opposite of that. Under Madge we were perhaps a tad overcoached in attack but everything was slick and every player knew their job, and there is no denying that it was successful. Now there is very little depth to our attack, we have no option/dummy runners, awful passing accuracy and we don't create overlaps. Sam has obviously adapted his game but there needs to be some element of a running game from him, just tipping it on to the centre every time regardless of whether they are in space or not isn't enough. Even if he has lost a yard of pace he should still be able to exploit gaps if they're there (even Wellens had a decent running game and ST is still quicker than he ever was - with his bootlaces tied together!)

What worries me now is after 23 games getting ourselves into a decent position purely by grinding out games is we don't seem to have addressed any of the issues in attack. Granted injuries haven't helped but Friday was one of the strongest "on paper" teams we've fielded all season, including first choice 1,6,7 and 13, and it was one of the worst performances. We're now getting to the business end of the season and there is nothing to suggest that anything is starting to "click". I hope I'm wrong but we could well be in for a pretty miserable back end of the season. Let's see how Friday goes for starters - another season not getting to Wembley after the way we have limped out over the past 2 seasons would be bitterly disappointing.

Re: Grubber kicks : Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:14 am  

We don't even execute our grubber kicks well. The vast majority go straight out of play.

It's not known as 'the Hail Mary ball' for nothing ... at best it gives you a 50% chance of scoring. But our halves can't even manage that.

Very frustrating to see possession near the line kicked away so often and so casually.

Re: Grubber kicks : Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:43 am  

Cruncher wrote:

We don't even execute our grubber kicks well. The vast majority go straight out of play.

It's not known as 'the Hail Mary ball' for nothing ... at best it gives you a 50% chance of scoring. But our halves can't even manage that.

Very frustrating to see possession near the line kicked away so often and so casually.

I can't understand why occasionally we don't take a tackle on the 6th especially if it's on the opponents line.
To be fair it's the only time our wingers actually have a decent chance of getting the ball so if we did stop kicking to the corner Manfredi and Charnley will get even less opportunities.

Re: Grubber kicks : Mon Jul 25, 2016 12:22 pm  

Surely, what virtually every team does, whether in SL or the NRL, is vary their 5th tackle options: the grubber kick to the corner for the winger, the grubber kick under the sticks (either for a runner to score or force a repeat set), the high kick to the corner, the power play...

Mystifyingly, we don't seem to do that.