The idea of having our halves wide and Sefa in the middle may be a good structure to use occasionally.
But to use it as a rule and especially at the start I think is a mistake. Most of the time we should have the players with the ability and responsibility to run our attack to be in the middle.
I don't think Sefa should be running our attack and it puts a bias on him to get it out wide to the halves more often than he should. Having our halves out wide restricts their choices once they get the ball.
Not too sure how much of the time when Sefa is on that the halves are wide and he distributes it but we seem to do worse when he starts and also move it wide too much and too early before setting the platform to go wide. Also we often seem to lack leadership from the halves. Just a hunch that this may be the problem.
Replies
The main problems from last nights game was too many dropped balls, poor completion rate and the lack of consistent pressure. Against the sharks we had a number of repeat sets and were able to retain more possession.
Generally, if you keep it simple for longer then you will have less mistakes and more possession. Whenever we got in the oppositions twenty we sent the ball wide on the first few plays. This did not work as we did not set it up by hitting it up the middle first. We lost the ball and the result was no points and no possession and not tiring the opposition.
Whose fault is it that the ball went wide too early, too often: Coach, Sefa, Halves, or the structure?
Could be an excuse to introduce Matterson to the bench when he is ready
Sefa slows the play down with his passes which are easy to read. When he takes over he is predictable and his short passes are always forward, other passes can end up any where as seen with passes to Sandow too high or low going to ground and slowing the structured play and running the real skilled players out of room. Does not bring anything to the table that warrants a place in the team.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next