As much as the match against the Warriors was difficult to watch, as a fan of tough forward play I must say the way McFadden has the Warriors playing is just beautiful.
Where as the accepted practice has been to put men on their backs to slow down the ruck, the Warriors are using sheer power and strength to get numbers into the tackle, keeping the attacker on their feet and then driving them back. It has the effect of slowing down the play and taking metres away. When the Warriors were able to drive back Junior Paulo about five metres, I just shook my head and what else could you say but well played.
I think the Warriors might just be in the process of changing the game again. The only way to combat this is to have forwards with footwork, who can get to the ground. We definitely missed Tim Mannah in this regard, but also you need to stop going one-out and use your bigger men a little wider. It actually suits us because our bigger guys do have some footwork and Joseph Paulo's role in the middle means we can play wider.
The strategy does also leave one vulnerable to an offload. With three men in the tackle and the process of creating distance between the ruck and your defensive line, it's opens up big opportunities for second phase play, but the Warriors seem to be doing a pretty good job of wrapping the ball up as well.
I backed the Warriors earlier in the year at 40-1 because I thought there was roster was potentially as good as any in the comp, and McFadden is proving himself a very smart coach who isn't afraid to innovate and do things differently. I still believe they are one of only three teams capable of winning the comp.
Replies
Add to that their ability to push in the scrum. We may be seeing a comeback of the contested scrum if they continue to do this successfully.
Dead right.. .as much as the loss hurts, like any loss... there was a lot to like about how the Kiwis played that game.
I thought there were quite a few 'union-ish' elements to how they played - the scrum push, the hitting in numbers, driving the ball carrier back - and not doing it here and there, the defence was relentless and it quickly became the norm for them to make ground in defence. Tackles were looking more like rolling mauls.
Hope they are changing the game with a performance like that as I think it was great to watch. Again, yes, the loss hurts - especially such a convincing one. However - I think any side that played a game like the Warriors did would have their fans discussing how great it was for a week solid - not just the score, how they played - we all would be if it have been our guys.
Scrum was the best part... bring that stuff back!
I think the broncos could make a good go of it this week if the behind the scenes issues dont effect them.
Yep - thought the same thing - back when Jason Cayless went over to them, their defence was very similar.
It worked for Roosters for 3 years (won 1 GF & contested 2 others) but they were then burnt out after that.
As bad as we were the Warriors were outstanding, and i agree besides the top 2 or 3 teams they are capable of going all the way. they will be a team no one will want to play in the finals that's for sure.
With 80% possession (only saw first 30 minutes) a team can do anything (remember last SOO game Qld had 60% possession & won handsomely against probably the second best team in world).
Interesting topic.
While their defensive tactics are yielding short term success, I'm not sold on the long term viability of McFadden's defensive structure. Don't get me wrong, it is awesome to witness the focused aggression and counter-attacking defence but I feel that it is far too vulnerable to getting hammered by the referees or simply burning the roster out.
There were plenty of times when the referees could have (and several times they definitely should have) blown penalties in our game for defenders driving runners back well beyond the held call and you can bet your last dollar that Hasler/Bellamy/Maguire/Robinson etc will be getting into the ear of Tony Archer about ensuring that officials don't allow the Warriors to get away with the same degree of leniency as we head towards the post-season.
As far as it representing a shift in the metagame for defensive structures in the NRL, I don't think it will catch on for both the reason I listed above and for the fact that it is simply too great an outlay of effort in a competition that is renowned for its rate of attrition. The current metagame of wrestling around the ruck will remain king as teams always gravitate to strategies/structures that produce the best results with the smallest input or simplest approach (e.g Single/Double blocker attacking shifts. Honourable mention to Pat Richards who introduced a meta-shift in dead ball restarts).
What the Warriors are doing at the moment is best left as a pocket strategy - don't use it every week but instead bring it to games where it really matters.That way opposition coaches can't spend the week priming the referees to look for and punish the aggressive defence and your players arrive at the game pumped for an ambush.
Well if there going to use it as a pocket strategy, I don't know why they would have pulled it out against that team of ours!
Has anyone else been watching many Warriors game, and has this been a feature of their defence prior to this game.
One factor I would suggest to counter the effort argument, Forty20, is that while it may be more taxing on the Warriors defence, it also is going to take petrol out of the opposition forwards. Not only does the prop have to make the effort of the hit-up they also need to work extra hard once the collission is made to try and stop being driven back. It was very noticable that our forward ran out of puff pretty quickly in that first half (which given the weight of possession was understandable but I think the battering they got helped). How much does three men driving one man back really tax you. I think a lot of it, is about the technique you use to ensure the man is kept on his feet, as compared to effort.
I guess the refereeing comes down to how dominant is the tackle. What the Warriors were doing were dominating the tackle, it wasn't like they were holding them there and then driving them back. They were getting early backward momentum and it's really impossible for them to suddenly just pull out of that once the man is going backwards. It certainly will be interesting to see how the referees approach it going forward.
I was just going to say a similer thing. I thought the new interpretation was that if you lose momentum you are effectively held. I have seen it on numerous occassions where we have been prevented from driving players back by the refs yelling held.
We have some powerful players in the backs and forwards and we can do a what the warriors did if the refs allow us.
Again there is no consistency from the refs. Same with the push in the scrum - usually you are prevented from pushing, what made that instance different?
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next