Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:26 pm  

Thankfully my TiVo box misbehaved and failed to record the match!

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:14 pm  

Rammo, nice post. I've followed this forum for a couple of years. The Cas result has moved me to post. I wasn't expecting such a humping at home, I know some you guys were anxious but I really didn't expect it to be a 50 pointer.

Who is our D coach? Do we have one?

Are we saying that our current crop of players, especially the outside backs , just can't cut it in D ( or attack) at SL level because of physicality?

If those stats are week in week out then someone on the coaching staff needs to take responsibility for fixing it. That's someone's job.

I don't subscribe fully to that, there must be a case for it's not the size of the dog jn the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Watching Lomax and Burrows getting stuck in is great.

I don't think we have much dog in our squad. We have tended to respond to a bit of biff ,playing up for a few minutes but that was the last couple of seasons.

Would any other coach be able to turn this squad into a competitive outfit? Or is there a stigma surrounding the London outfit that pervades into the players psyche that means they are never going to perform no matter what playing structures and communication you drill into them.

It is so terribly sad to see London getting stuffed on and off the pitch.

What will happen to the youth if there is no SL team in London? Trek up North for those who want to get on?

Chester Uni, Leeds Met etc even Gloucester offer pathways with foundation degrees for example.

Couple of guys from All Golds have gone to Noosa Pirates. Doesn't sound like a bad gig.

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:01 pm  

Mark, thanks for the interesting post. I would say, though, that the results and their manner were completely predictable, once the quality of recruitment became apparent. It's always going to be speculative to comment without being in the dressing room, but I have not seen anything to suggest the current coach is providing much in the way of organisation or inspiration, sadly.

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:25 pm  

markrammond wrote:

Foster should never run the ball in whilst I would use Krasniqi also a purely defensive Prop.

For once I disagree. Why on earth would you play someone as a defensive prop? I've never heard such a thing. The prime role is to attack, they should be able to defend. Or not be there.

Of the stats, any news on the amount of ineffective tackles. That I suspect would be a killer for us.

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:12 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote:

any news on the amount of ineffective tackles.

JOC sticking an occasional arm out should be listed not so much an ineffective tackle as an effective turnstile.

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:02 am  

Hello all

Let me explain a bit further; let's look at the stats.

Each of our outside backs made a minimum of 12 carries and the average looks to be about 14 per man.

Each of our forwards, aside from Moore made 11 or fewer carries. The average looks about 9 for guys who play long minutes and only about 6 for the rest.

This means we have forwards making about one carry every 8 minutes (if they are on for the full game) or every 4 minutes if they are rotated.

Now you would expect us to have about two sets of possession in 4 minutes and the data is telling us that forwards are making less than half of the carries in the game, so only 1 carry each in the two sets.

What I am saying is that we would be better to make sure that on just about every set we have Cook, Greenwood and Vea running onto the ball and making a carry. (This is what Cas did with Andy Lynch who made 23 carries). These three would be in effect our "attacking" forwards from planned moves. They would become almost a little unit to share the brunt of the attacking work.

Whilst the guys who make fewer metres like Griffin, Slyney and Foster I would be saying to them that that they should share the brunt of the defensive work.

In essence, we want to make sure that we reduce the 'voluntary mismatch' where you put e.g. an Alex Foster against bigger players to drive the ball in, the kid is a great tackler make sure you keep him on that.

In an ideal world we'd be making sure that ALL the forwards are running the ball much more often. I know that many coaches are happy to put in the outside backs to 'share the work' and make carries early in the set. But this only works when you have wingers with a physique that would make them genuinely competitive with forwards or the ability to evade.

What we are seeing instead is backs making fewer metres when making drives or even being pushed back on drives and it cannot be helping them or us. It would be better if they are fresher for when the ball comes wide given the lack of defensive quality being shown after they have been mangled making these drives. And you can't tell me that the forwards cannot go from 9 drives to lets say 14? That would be about 50 extra drives between the starting six and the three or four on the bench if shared equally. And we might start to create some momentum!

By the way, I am pretty furious with the pitiful effort but also one thing in my mind is that the chances of seeing good Rugby League in London in the future depends on sticking with the team now. If everyone gives up, then we will be a Championship club watched by a few hundred and won't ever return to the top flight. It is going to be hard to watch the next 20 games. But what will be harder is to see the club go. Given that we've lost about 1800 from 2800 I really do fear for the club I must say, but I can understand Londoners not wanting to watch drubbings.

The only positive thing I can say today is that, if we look at the table, we are still in the mix with a very fair chance of avoiding relegation if we can come to life. We are not marooned - we are still only 2 points (effectively 3 points) from being outside the relegation zone. But we must now do a Lazarus.

PS I counted 37 missed tackles in the stats

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:54 am  

markrammond wrote:

Hello all

Let me explain a bit further; let's look at the stats.

Each of our outside backs made a minimum of 12 carries and the average looks to be about 14 per man.

Each of our forwards, aside from Moore made 11 or fewer carries. The average looks about 9 for guys who play long minutes and only about 6 for the rest.

This means we have forwards making about one carry every 8 minutes (if they are on for the full game) or every 4 minutes if they are rotated.

Now you would expect us to have about two sets of possession in 4 minutes and the data is telling us that forwards are making less than half of the carries in the game, so only 1 carry each in the two sets.

What I am saying is that we would be better to make sure that on just about every set we have Cook, Greenwood and Vea running onto the ball and making a carry. (This is what Cas did with Andy Lynch who made 23 carries). These three would be in effect our "attacking" forwards from planned moves. They would become almost a little unit to share the brunt of the attacking work.

Whilst the guys who make fewer metres like Griffin, Slyney and Foster I would be saying to them that that they should share the brunt of the defensive work.

In essence, we want to make sure that we reduce the 'voluntary mismatch' where you put e.g. an Alex Foster against bigger players to drive the ball in, the kid is a great tackler make sure you keep him on that.

In an ideal world we'd be making sure that ALL the forwards are running the ball much more often. I know that many coaches are happy to put in the outside backs to 'share the work' and make carries early in the set. But this only works when you have wingers with a physique that would make them genuinely competitive with forwards or the ability to evade.

What we are seeing instead is backs making fewer metres when making drives or even being pushed back on drives and it cannot be helping them or us. It would be better if they are fresher for when the ball comes wide given the lack of defensive quality being shown after they have been mangled making these drives. And you can't tell me that the forwards cannot go from 9 drives to lets say 14? That would be about 50 extra drives between the starting six and the three or four on the bench if shared equally. And we might start to create some momentum!

By the way, I am pretty furious with the pitiful effort but also one thing in my mind is that the chances of seeing good Rugby League in London in the future depends on sticking with the team now. If everyone gives up, then we will be a Championship club watched by a few hundred and won't ever return to the top flight. It is going to be hard to watch the next 20 games. But what will be harder is to see the club go. Given that we've lost about 1800 from 2800 I really do fear for the club I must say, but I can understand Londoners not wanting to watch drubbings.

The only positive thing I can say today is that, if we look at the table, we are still in the mix with a very fair chance of avoiding relegation if we can come to life. We are not marooned - we are still only 2 points (effectively 3 points) from being outside the relegation zone. But we must now do a Lazarus.

PS I counted 37 missed tackles in the stats

Just to clarify, when you say missed are you including ineffective in that? They are two separate things stats wise.

One observation I have made is that the refs really let a ball carrier who is upright in a tackle go on for ages without being calling held as opposed to the NRL. I noticed they got a few offloads away when I was expecting a call. Hence that's an ineffective tackle as opposed to missed.

Also Mark, have a butchers at the NRL's stats site and compare what you're saying as a point of reference to see if it tallies with your thoughts.

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:57 am  

Are you a ghost writer for Phil Clarke?

We are not marooned because the league is only a few weeks in. The Bulls have had 6 points deducted and now have a new owner.

That team won't win a game all season. Cas, Wakey at home were "bankers" before the season started.

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:55 am  

Although we had less prep time than other SL teams we are still "full time" professional athletes. They have had since January and some much longer as professional athletes... so why on earth are they physically ineffective against similar professional athletes?

Someone can become extremely fit and strong by training part-time and balancing a full time job with excerise and gym work... so if someone is doing it full time and as their job... why on earth are they not physically able to handle themselves on the field?

I have said on another thead that what the coaching team (or person if singular)need to do is focus 100% on defence. Forget the attacking plays etc... because at present we are just shipping in points and be default giving repeat sets away like candy. If we don't have the ball why waste time training on attacking plays?!

Get the defence mean, organised and physically on-song and then we'll start to generate a 50% share of possession. Once that's in place we can start to think about who takes the ball up in the first, second, third etc. plays and how to manage on the sixth tackle.

Get someone in who can get into the players heads and motivate them to understand the mental aspects to putting their bodies on the line and what is required. This can be turned around in a short space of time - defence wise - and we can then progress. Until that happens we'll continue to lose by cricket scores.

We all want to win... but I must speak for the majority that to lose 12-0 is easier to stomach than 54-6!

Re: Tony Rea - posts tech, cheers the BBC : Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:51 pm  

Hear Ye! wrote:

Although we had less prep time than other SL teams we are still "full time" professional athletes. They have had since January and some much longer as professional athletes... so why on earth are they physically ineffective against similar professional athletes?

Someone can become extremely fit and strong by training part-time and balancing a full time job with excerise and gym work... so if someone is doing it full time and as their job... why on earth are they not physically able to handle themselves on the field?

I have said on another thead that what the coaching team (or person if singular)need to do is focus 100% on defence. Forget the attacking plays etc... because at present we are just shipping in points and be default giving repeat sets away like candy. If we don't have the ball why waste time training on attacking plays?!

Get the defence mean, organised and physically on-song and then we'll start to generate a 50% share of possession. Once that's in place we can start to think about who takes the ball up in the first, second, third etc. plays and how to manage on the sixth tackle.

Get someone in who can get into the players heads and motivate them to understand the mental aspects to putting their bodies on the line and what is required. This can be turned around in a short space of time - defence wise - and we can then progress. Until that happens we'll continue to lose by cricket scores.

We all want to win... but I must speak for the majority that to lose 12-0 is easier to stomach than 54-6!

I agree with that, but I'd add that we look physically smaller than every other team. Apart from Greenwood our props are all dwarfed by their opposite numbers and when that happens it doesn't really matter how much effort you put in (and I do think the lads are trying) because you're always being pushed around. Having a big, physical pack is even more important when you play on a small, narrow pitch.