Hooker back also forces Talia to go with a more mobile forward.
Edit: wrong thread
Hooker back also forces Talia to go with a more mobile forward.
Edit: wrong thread
Hooker back and Langford forward.
Yeah, but Saad and Brown are good kicks at goal.
Losing the tackle statistic always annoys me. Itâs the one thing that everyone can do, regardless if youâre having a bad game or if youâre getting flogged, or if youâre outclassed, or if youâre winning. You should always have the mindset to tackle, tackle, tackle. Put more emphasis on tackling and all those stats that we suck at (turnovers at HB, clearances, contested ball, ball staying in the forward line) would improve massively. Plus, whoâs scared of a team that plays bruise-free football?
Decent work by Shawy. Hope there is plenty more that is readily accessable.
Shaw says the critical stat is bottom 4 for % time ball stays in forward line. Couldnât this just mean we score quickly?
Get Cripps and we are likely premiers? Thatâs Zac Merrett levels of confidence (not necessarily a bad thing).
I presume Shaw is no longer a club appointment, since he is freer with his criticism of the coaching mantra and the club generally. Generally constructive, good stuff but he seems more in the âfollow the premiersâ than the âbe the new pacesetterâ camp.
High tackle count is not dependent on whether the player is being lazy or not, itâs the style of play that determines how many numbers are at each contest.
The players tackle when its there turn but as Shaw points out in the article we tend to spread early from contests to use the width of the ground.
Tackling is the most basic form of pressure. Thereâs no point spreading early from the contest to use the width of the ground if the opposition is killing us at the contest and winning clearances.
Yes, but that is a coaching thing.
Yep, agreed. It just bugs me when we donât tackle well.
I think we need better balance also.
The reports have been that we have been working on that this preseason so Iâm looking forward to how that pans out this year.
Looks like Shawry will be around all year.
Good news.
Shaw mentioned us lacking an intercept marking defender. Gleeson was the player who stepped up in this area and now that heâs out , I think sending Hooker back is crucial.
It is also based on the fact that you canât tackle when you have possession of the ball and from memory we are a high possession team (or at least we were) and we seem to be the masters of switching and chipping backwards at any opportunity.
We are usually a huge uncontested marking team as well as a result of the above. But having said that, tackling and defensive pressure can always be better for any team.
Yep, its the gameplan that dictates the tackle count mostly.
I think you and I have discussed before about adding more forward pressure in the form of a smaller player like Long.
Shaw also mentions that we donât apply enough forward pressure and that in turn doesnât allow our slow midfield to cover their opponents which in turn exposes the backline.
I was a far bigger fan of when we had Green in the side last year as opposed to when we had Laverde and I do hope that we donât try to be too fancy and take in four talls(I consider Laverde a tall) again.
That is the concern with Daniher, Stewart, Hooker and Stringer in the same forward line (assuming Stringer will be spending at least 50% time forward)
Yep, which I wouldnât be upset if Hooker went back.
Stringer I do see as a slightly different proposition to Laverde though, just because he will require a better defender which will assist the other forwards and what he can do when he wins the ball.
That medium sixe forward to me is a waste of time. That goes for Laverde, Langfod or Begley.
I prefer somebody like Walla that can apply lots of pressure and create goals.
If Laverdes in the side then Hooker needs to go back.
That might work.
You mean Langford?
When Laverdes back from injury in 6 weeks.
Im not sure where the Langford mid experiment is goingâŚbut if Parish or Myers are out he surely must playâŚ