I didn't go back prior to 1983, because tries were 3 points.
1984 - 260 points conceded - played 24 (Runners Up)
1986 - 280 points conceded - played 24 (Premiers)
1983 - 293 points conceded - played 26 (Premiers)
1999 - 294 points conceded - played 24 (Lost GF qualifier)
1998 - 349 points conceded - played 24 (Lost GF qualifier)
1997 - 359 points conceded - played 22 (Made finals)
2001 - 406 points conceded - played 26 (Runners Up)
2005 - 456 points conceded - played 24 (Minor Premiers)
2009 - 473 points conceded - played 24 (Runners Up)
Need good defence to win a competition. In the case of 1984, lose a GF in a close one where the game could of gone either way.
Replies
The other side of the equation - you NEED to score points to win.
I am not allowed to argue with Wayne Bennett - "Defence wins games" - but if you ain't scoring you haven't got a snow flake's chance in hell of winning, regardless of how good your defence may be.
True, but Parra ruined that theory in 2001 after scoring 839 points after 26 games. Ouch!!
Look at the Dragons last year, they were top of the pops with the best defence at the start of the season but withered and died by the end - couldn't sustain that type of defensive effort for an entire season.
Defence is probably more important because it shows attitude, team spirit and morale. But we have to spend time with the ball in hand and do something worthwhile with it or we won't last.
I think BA, is trying to get the right balance & said on many occassions:
' He gives the team a "licence" to play footy ( not just structured play ) as as long as they turn up in defence with the right attitude first.'
Which they have this year.
Imo BA is right re his observations that you need more than good structured sets to breach defences these days. (e.g. Canberra have great sets plays, but..).
I like how Norman & Foz are working in attack. They don't play predictable one on either side. They play together & switch sides, too (as opposed to defensively, where they're more fixed , structured).
We're moving towards the right balance imo.
I am not arguing against the defence principle per se - I am saying you MUST score.
Eg. - You defend your line and keep the opposition scoreless - then you DON'T score yourself and what do you have?
At the end of the season if you have defended successfully and come out with 26 wins you MUST have at least plus 26 points in your F&A.
slip blew his own argument with a 839/406 F&A in 2001.
We conceded an average 15.6 points per game BUT scored an average 32,3
That was one hell of an average.
Fast forward to 2016 - we are conceding 10.7 and scoring 18.3 - and winning.
Winning is everything.
Now look at the Raiders on minus 35 sitting 7th - absolutely NO room for error if they want to finish the season in the 8 - if they lose their next game they could slide from 7th to as bad as 13th on just one game.
Raiders are a far better argument for defence wins games.
Last year is also an example NBE - Canberra were 3rd on the ladder for points scored - BUT - 4th worst for points against, plus the only team in the bottom 8 to have a positive F&A (+8)
There are valid points for both sides of the argument
In 1984 Kenny scored a fair try but disallowed by Hollywood Greg Hartley (no video refs in those days). Think Dogs won 4 - 2 with Mark(?) Bugden (hooker) scoring try.
Bulldogs won 6 - 4 (Mark Bugden converted try) and the referee was Kevin Roberts.
Think it was 6-4 we lost in 84 (we won 4-2 in 86).
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next