Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:35 pm  

Well Quinlan's off the mark with a hat-trick. He backed up down the middle, which we've missed, and took his chances. But I hope he carries on scoring for fun, because he's going to concede two tries out of every three breaks. The lad is TINY, and he was being bumped off tackles all night tonight.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:39 pm  

I'm sure that will be a future RL trivia question.

Who was the last player to score a hatrick on an appearance debut for their team.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:55 pm  

When I arrived at saints and seen him warming up with his leg all strapped up I thought what the hell is he doing here but he did ok.

Took some nice high balls and got on score sheet three times and I my landed less than week ago so it was very good debut.

I was surprised how deep he was in defence. I've never seen a fullback so deep. Maybe KC told him too stop Brough going 40/20. The chip over the top was on all night.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:16 pm  

Great to see someone who actually knows what support play is. The rest were stood watching.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:19 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

Well Quinlan's off the mark with a hat-trick. He backed up down the middle, which we've missed, and took his chances. But I hope he carries on scoring for fun, because he's going to concede two tries out of every three breaks. The lad is TINY, and he was being bumped off tackles all night tonight.

Yeah. For at least one try I thought I was watching Steve Prescott again. Wellens would have kept it out. That said, it's hardly fair to attack someone who's just got off the plane and scored a hat-trick.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:57 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Yeah. For at least one try I thought I was watching Steve Prescott again. Wellens would have kept it out. That said, it's hardly fair to attack someone who's just got off the plane and scored a hat-trick.

Not attacking him. He backed up well, and if he keeps following Roby around the middle of the park, he'll get more. But he made an awful miss for their first try, and was bumped off several more times, two of which resulted in more tries.

I've got an issue with very small backs. Tackles made by threequarters are much more likely to be 1-on-1 than those made by the forwards, and they're also more likely to be tangential - having to grab with the arm as your opponent tries to get around you - whereas most forward tackles are head-on shoulder-led collisions. This means that backs either have to be at least as big and strong in the upper body as their opponents, or have superb anticipation or tackling technique. Preferably all three. What we have are (Turner-excepted), easily the smallest backs in the top 8. None of them are particularly special defenders, although Makinson's technique is pretty good. So when their bigger opponents run at them, our lads often manage to get a hand or arm on the carrier, but are simply not big or strong enough to impede progress sufficiently to prevent either a full break, or an easy pass to a supporting runner who then breaks.

The other teams have figured this out now, and that's why they're coming at us out wide. You're right that we can neutralise this tactic to some extent by having our forwards become so dominant and aggressive that the opposition don't get space to move it out wide, but our forwards are struggling to do that at the moment, and it's killing us. However, even if the forwards rediscover dominance, we're still being hurt by our Lilliputian backs, because our lads CAN be brought down by the outstretched arms of their bigger, stronger opponents. How many times do we see our threequarters actually beat their opponent one-on-one, compared to the reverse ? Often we see a half-break which doesn't quite make it as our carrier is dragged down by a tenuous grip, where a bigger man might have been able to exploit greater momentum. It's not coincidental that our most effective attacking force by far is Turner, who is the only one of our backs who can ride a tackle and continue to make yards when hands are laid on him.

We need some size.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:13 am  

I don't remember anyone saying Lomax was too small when he was moved to fullback. Height doesn't make too much difference. A smaller man can take a big man down. It's down to technique, strength and courage.

That said, when most of your backs are on small side it does become an issue when facing the likes of Watkins, Hall and co.

Excellent debut from the lad.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:53 am  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

Not attacking him. He backed up well, and if he keeps following Roby around the middle of the park, he'll get more. But he made an awful miss for their first try, and was bumped off several more times, two of which resulted in more tries.

I've got an issue with very small backs. Tackles made by threequarters are much more likely to be 1-on-1 than those made by the forwards, and they're also more likely to be tangential - having to grab with the arm as your opponent tries to get around you - whereas most forward tackles are head-on shoulder-led collisions. This means that backs either have to be at least as big and strong in the upper body as their opponents, or have superb anticipation or tackling technique. Preferably all three. What we have are (Turner-excepted), easily the smallest backs in the top 8. None of them are particularly special defenders, although Makinson's technique is pretty good. So when their bigger opponents run at them, our lads often manage to get a hand or arm on the carrier, but are simply not big or strong enough to impede progress sufficiently to prevent either a full break, or an easy pass to a supporting runner who then breaks.

The other teams have figured this out now, and that's why they're coming at us out wide. You're right that we can neutralise this tactic to some extent by having our forwards become so dominant and aggressive that the opposition don't get space to move it out wide, but our forwards are struggling to do that at the moment, and it's killing us. However, even if the forwards rediscover dominance, we're still being hurt by our Lilliputian backs, because our lads CAN be brought down by the outstretched arms of their bigger, stronger opponents. How many times do we see our threequarters actually beat their opponent one-on-one, compared to the reverse ? Often we see a half-break which doesn't quite make it as our carrier is dragged down by a tenuous grip, where a bigger man might have been able to exploit greater momentum. It's not coincidental that our most effective attacking force by far is Turner, who is the only one of our backs who can ride a tackle and continue to make yards when hands are laid on him.

We need some size.

It would be nice to have one or two bigger guys, sure. But I take issue with the idea that our backs can't punch holes in the opposition. Our problem isn't that our backs are hitting the opposition big guys and being thrown backwards like the heel in some kind of WWE match. Our problem is that our backs don't receive enough ball.

As you say, Turner breaks tackles for fun. So does Adam Swift. Tommy has never been a break-maker. But there isn't another player in SL I'd trust more to finish a move without screwing up. As for Percy - once he gets on the outside of his opposite number it's all over.

If we do have a problem at the moment it is that we are badly missing a wide-running second row or loose forward who injects himself as an extra man into the back line. At the start of the season I don't think we really appreciated just HOW MUCH Vea was giving us in that department. Especially as he seems capable of doing the work of two men.

Greenwood is a cracking prospect. But he's also a completely different kind of second row. Sav is the closest thing we have to Vea in terms of ability. But he tends to stay in the centre channel.

And as you say - the backs defend fine when the forwards do their job in defence. For the last few weeks they haven't. Let's just hope it's down to tiredness.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:46 am  

I rated Adam Quinlan when he first burst onto the scenes at the Dragons. He will be a very good acquisition for the Saints. However, I think because of the lack of top grade action lately he may be a little inconsistent with his game. All in all, great to see him start off with a bang. http://www.nothingbutleague.com/walsh-d ... st-giants/

I rated Adam Quinlan when he first burst onto the scenes at the Dragons. He will be a very good acquisition for the Saints. However, I think because of the lack of top grade action lately he may be a little inconsistent with his game. All in all, great to see him start off with a bang. http://www.nothingbutleague.com/walsh-d ... st-giants/

Re: Adam Quinlan : Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:26 am  

St pete wrote:

When I arrived at saints and seen him warming up with his leg all strapped up I thought what the hell is he doing here but he did ok.

Took some nice high balls and got on score sheet three times and I my landed less than week ago so it was very good debut.

I was surprised how deep he was in defence. I've never seen a fullback so deep. Maybe KC told him too stop Brough going 40/20. The chip over the top was on all night.

It could be to cover the risk of a 40/20, particularly since Brough is so good at them. You also increase the chances that you are gonna be running forward onto the ball obviously. As much as the chip is on, anywhere in your own half that's a risky play. As the defending team, I'd be quite happy to let that tempt the attacking team and let us just play the percentages.

He looks solid enough. Clearly brave and pretty steady under high balls, seems to organise the defensive line okay enough and supports pretty well. In terms of a debut you can't ask for much more. His links with Walsh and Burns will come with time.