I'm in constant disagreement with a lot of folk on here, about the style of football we play. I agree with it, if I was coaching the side, I'd be doing exactly the same thing that Kearney is doing in relation to our style of play. Simply because I don't think you can be successful in the NRL doing it any other way.
Souths are my benchmark for this. On paper, they have just about the best side in the competition. They have attacking strike power all over the park - they should be putting on points at will with a side that contains Inglis, Burgess, Taylor, Sandow, Sutton, Wesser, Merritt, etc. Yet they sit below us on the table.
What is clear than ever before, is that the teams who know how to win the ruck - basically slowing down the play most effectively and who earn the highest number of red-zone opportunities, win most every match. The top three sides on the ladder are the best three teams in this regard.
Surely, you'd be a fool to see that pattern and not go with it.
Until there are rule changes that prevent so much wrestling and speeds up the play-the-ball like limiting the third man in on the tackle, there's just no point in playing that free-flowing game. The risk vs rewards doesn't justify it.
Now, of course, the ideal is to get to a point that has your controlled, disciplined foundations and then you're able to add attacking elements to your game. This is where both the Storm and Dragons are at this year, and why they're so much better than everyone else, because not only can they choke the life out of your attack but they can then turn around and leverage that to put 30 points on you when they're on. It's worth remembering how dominant Saints were in last year's Grand Final against the second best team in the comp.
So what is the option? Adopt a style that if you're lucky will scrape you into the finals because that's what your current roster knows or go through the pain of re-wiring your team and along the way weed out the players who can't fulfill the style of game you need to play.
It's not the 'Kearney style' it's the style of play that has proved dominant in our game, and you'd be stupid in my mind not to follow suit. And quite clearly, given the fact that so few teams have been able to replicate it, it's a style that requires a very solid foundation in terms of fitness, player attitudes, on-field responses and underlying playing structures. You simply can't lay that foundation doing things half-hearted. You have to draw some lines in the sand and if that means doing things like not picking players because they have not met attitude/behavioural standards, or sticking with young players you see as your future even if they're not quite ready, or even going into a game with some structures you know will leave you vulnerable than I believe you just have to do it.
For example, we are clearly aiming to play a more condensed defence that relies on your centre effectively sliding because it's the only real way to combat the fullback coming around the back to create the extra man. And until you can get that defensive structure in place, you'll always struggle to defend against any team that has that play down. But right now we don't have the players in our backline who are at the required level defensively to be able to defend in that manner. As we saw today with Joel Reddy who got torn to shreds, yet is regarded as one of the better defensive centres, it's not an easy style to master - never mind asking a young Jacob Loko to do likewise against Mark Gasnier.
So today, if we expected to go close, we probably should have defended with a more up-and-in style and pushed the Dragons back to the middle. This is especially so, given that they were missing Darius Boyd who is the player who is most likely to cut you up with that kind of defence. Inviting Cooper/Morris and Gasnier/Nightingale to try and go round Etu/Reddy and Loko/Atkins was never going to end in anything but tears.
To my mind this is why in these types of games we're getting absolutely creamed because Kearney at this point is putting all of his focus on a particular style of play and taking the mentality that if we're going to master this, we've got to stick with it regardless of whether its suicide or not to take that option. After all, when you get smashed they're really the games you tend to learn most from. How much will Jacob Loko take out of that game today? He could play a full-year in NYC and he'd not learn as much as he did in a single game getting schooled by Gasnier today.
So yes, when we play a top-tier team who executes well, we stand no hope. Take it as given. But it's with the hope that when we play a team that can't quite execute as well, that we'll have learnt enough that we'll win more of those games. That's the way this season has gone so far, and I think we can expect to see it continue right throughout 2011. So I say again, it's not the wallopings we get handed by teams like the Storm and Dragons you have to worry about - it's whether we take enough lessons out of those games that is shows up against the teams who are at a closer point in their development to us, that really matters - and in the end, it is what this year should be judged upon.
Replies
love this blog can not agree more
GO PARRA!!
I agree Phil, but surely Kearney has anaylsed our woeful attack, well as you say, our "inability to apply pressure", which I exactly agree with.
I know the halves are a constant scapegoat, but they are for a good reason. They offer close to absolutely nothing in opportunies for attack. It's like we're playing with a handicap!
I miss our 2nd phase play with offloads though, it was one of our biggest natural strengths! It's a great way to gain metres and consistently apply pressure. Why can't we incorporate this in our gameplan?
I'm just mostly disappointed with not just possesion and completion rates, but our lack of gaining any metres!
It's not just the lack of offloads that are costing us metres, it's things like not playing wide and passing the ball around instead of running into 3 defenders 10 metres away from dummy-half and Mortimer and Robson kicking on the 4th tackle and not the last! How were er ever going to apply the pressure to the Dragons if we were rarely in their half.
I just believe that offloads need to be incorporated in our playing style, along with using the width of the pitch and Hayne as the primary kicker, or Burt!
I'm not arguing with anyone in relation to the halves. We need to try a new combination because this one isn't going to get better. When we have applied pressure, out attack has actually looked good at times. Of course, we look infinitely better when Jarryd chimes in because you can't fake class and you need that touch of class in the NRL to score points unless your structured plays are executed absolutely flawlessly.
There's nothing wrong with offloads but you just have to do it in a way that minimises the risk involved. We threw a few of them today but we don't have many players who are capable of doing anything more than just dishing the ball back to the dummy half which may get you a few extra metres but it doesn't make many inroads into the attack.
I actually think we've been ok on the metres front, particularly when Tim and fuifui are on.
At this point if we don't put hayne to 6 i think the other option is putting mcguire to 7 and burt to 6 - if we don't have a better option in the juniors. then you can leave robson mortimer etc to fight out for the hooking role.
Our point of difference should be the edges.... we have woderful yardage men down the middle... let's get some size in the back line and role through teams at every level in an up tempo game...
If we get Sandow. I really think we should be emulating the Broncos teams of the 90's.... big and simple down the middle and big and fast out wide... their halves weren't the most creative polayers but were great following their footy insitincts and scheming off the back of the good work done by the forwards... this would suite Morts, Sandow(if signed), Hayne.
Sandow is not a cronk or soward style of player and Hayne is not a Slater type player.... if we can create space through our yardage Hayne and Sandow will get us home on the natural abilities IMO.
Fitness v Stamina.
You can in fact train TOO much and you will begin to suffer niggling injuries because of this.
On the other hand you can train TOO little and also suffer niggling injuries because of that.
Being super fit does NOT mean you are capable of competing for the full 80 minutes.
If you are fit and have STAMINA you will not only compete for 80 minutes but have a little in reserve if you go to Golden Point.
Stamina is far more important then super fitness and this has been proven by so many atheletes in so many different sports that it cannot be ignored.
Unfortunately we ONLY hear about FITNESS at the Eels and as is starting to show some of our usual 80 minute players are starting to fade in the last 10-15 minutes of the game.
Structure and Discipline.
Most necessary and I cannot argue with your analysis 1EE.
I posted elsewhere that if structure and discipline is so regimented that it dimininshes the "natural" playing abilities of some players then it must be reviewed in the context of how much detrimental influence it has on the team's ability to win games.
To ultimately have the Fittest, most structured and disciplined team in the comp and come away with the wooden spoon is suicide to the max.
To have fit players with stamina, playing to a structured and disciplined game plan PLUS with the liberty to use their natural talents when the opportunity presents itself should be the goal.
Atm the three teams playing to this criteria are leading the comp and laying waste to almost every team they meet.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next