: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:38 pm  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

I'm ignoring the whole centre debate because I think the club's doing the right thing there. I think we lack some destructive running in the forwards, with really only Laut'iti and Leuluai as hard hitters with the ball - and Ali is often not that fit and Leuluai only plays in spells. If Hock had better hands and discipline I'd have him in a second.

The 'pace' stuff's b*lls IMO. The backs are reasonably quick as a unit, and McGuire-Burrow are probably faster than most halfback pairings. In any event everyone looks a yard faster when the attack is working and pedestrian when its not.

My issue is that the structure of the team looks poor. When you get near the opposition line, there should be a clear plan for the 5 tackles, which only changes if an opportunity arises or someone stuffs it up.

With Leeds it appears that whilst the 'elements' of a planned set are there (i.e. a couple of drives to suck in the forwards then start moving wider) this really doesn't seem to be done with the clear intent of dragging the defence around and with a full understanding by the team of what plays will be run on each tackle.

I'd like to see McGuire and Burrow in at first receiver more often, with Sinfield further out. He provides structure but the other two need to take more responsibility for the team than they do, and McGuire in particular out wide seems to run his centre out of space quite regularly (another reason why Gibson may not be looking the best).

As I say, I think it's pretty poor that with thiose three plus Webb and Diskin/Buderus that we aren't the most dangerous side in the league close to the opponents line.

To be fair that was also something I felt at times when Smith was coach as well. I do wonder if it's down to our 'plan' being more around making sure all of our 'playmakers' get the ball. All I know is I've seen sides with a single attacking ball handler look more structured and therefore dangerous near the tryline than Leeds.

Well put. Spot on.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:11 am  

tad rhino wrote:

one good point nobody,me included, has mentioned is we stumbled through most of 2007 in unconvincing style. in fact we were very average for most of it.
it could be that because of the world cup bluey has deliberately gone for a slow start and was unlucky to draw saints early. time will tell on that one.
speaking to an ex SL player today at work,he is now a contractor, his words were" for'ards not big or tough enough.you need a couple of nasty feckers in there".
can't argue with that!

there is still time to get better, it's early. however the balance of the side must improve. a right centre and forward is a must for me, especially a centre. george carmont till the end of the season now gleeson has signed?

I'm sure I remember seeing Bluey say that we were going for a much slower start to the season to try and avoid the slump we had mid season last year, someone may be able to post a link. The performances to date certainly reflect that approach.

In that respect we were unlucky to draw Saints in the first round of the CC, I would argue that as disappointing as Sunday was, that performance would have beat most teams in the league. Saints on the other hand are in the position we were in last year with a new coach bringing in new ideas and an eagerness to impress. It will be hard for them to maintain that level of performance all year and I would expect them to have a slump at some point, especially as a lot of their key players are that bit older than ours.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:14 am  

Dirty Pretty Thing wrote:

I'm sure I remember seeing Bluey say that we were going for a much slower start to the season to try and avoid the slump we had mid season last year, someone may be able to post a link. The performances to date certainly reflect that approach.

In that respect we were unlucky to draw Saints in the first round of the CC, I would argue that as disappointing as Sunday was, that performance would have beat most teams in the league. Saints on the other hand are in the position we were in last year with a new coach bringing in new ideas and an eagerness to impress. It will be hard for them to maintain that level of performance all year and I would expect them to have a slump at some point, especially as a lot of their key players are that bit older than ours.

Not sure I agree with Saints not being able to keep that up. Their defence was good, but I think they played well within themselves, and I have seen them be more devastating with the ball before

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:31 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

I'm ignoring the whole centre debate because I think the club's doing the right thing there. I think we lack some destructive running in the forwards, with really only Laut'iti and Leuluai as hard hitters with the ball - and Ali is often not that fit and Leuluai only plays in spells. If Hock had better hands and discipline I'd have him in a second.

The 'pace' stuff's b*lls IMO. The backs are reasonably quick as a unit, and McGuire-Burrow are probably faster than most halfback pairings. In any event everyone looks a yard faster when the attack is working and pedestrian when its not.

My issue is that the structure of the team looks poor. When you get near the opposition line, there should be a clear plan for the 5 tackles, which only changes if an opportunity arises or someone stuffs it up.

With Leeds it appears that whilst the 'elements' of a planned set are there (i.e. a couple of drives to suck in the forwards then start moving wider) this really doesn't seem to be done with the clear intent of dragging the defence around and with a full understanding by the team of what plays will be run on each tackle.

I'd like to see McGuire and Burrow in at first receiver more often, with Sinfield further out. He provides structure but the other two need to take more responsibility for the team than they do, and McGuire in particular out wide seems to run his centre out of space quite regularly (another reason why Gibson may not be looking the best).

As I say, I think it's pretty poor that with thiose three plus Webb and Diskin/Buderus that we aren't the most dangerous side in the league close to the opponents line.

To be fair that was also something I felt at times when Smith was coach as well. I do wonder if it's down to our 'plan' being more around making sure all of our 'playmakers' get the ball. All I know is I've seen sides with a single attacking ball handler look more structured and therefore dangerous near the tryline than Leeds.

An excellent post. I'd agree with 99% of that, but i beleive we need a top centre but hey ho. How would you address that lack of destructive running in the forwards? Some one needs to be brought in imo - of a higher priority than a centre.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:56 am  

I see us now in a style of play a lot like the attack under Murray. It isn't about deep runners and crossing lines to make space. It's about short plays trying to punch a hole through the line, and then a back or halfback making something of that space. The Burrow break was a great example - Peacock makes a gap, takes two defenders out and offloads, Burow moves away from the gap to open it up and the back into it. Great when it works as it's hard to defend with it being so much down to just individual ability, but it looks bad when it doesn't work.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:09 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

I'm ignoring the whole centre debate because I think the club's doing the right thing there. I think we lack some destructive running in the forwards, with really only Laut'iti and Leuluai as hard hitters with the ball - and Ali is often not that fit and Leuluai only plays in spells. If Hock had better hands and discipline I'd have him in a second.

The 'pace' stuff's b*lls IMO. The backs are reasonably quick as a unit, and McGuire-Burrow are probably faster than most halfback pairings. In any event everyone looks a yard faster when the attack is working and pedestrian when its not.

My issue is that the structure of the team looks poor. When you get near the opposition line, there should be a clear plan for the 5 tackles, which only changes if an opportunity arises or someone stuffs it up.

With Leeds it appears that whilst the 'elements' of a planned set are there (i.e. a couple of drives to suck in the forwards then start moving wider) this really doesn't seem to be done with the clear intent of dragging the defence around and with a full understanding by the team of what plays will be run on each tackle.

I'd like to see McGuire and Burrow in at first receiver more often, with Sinfield further out. He provides structure but the other two need to take more responsibility for the team than they do, and McGuire in particular out wide seems to run his centre out of space quite regularly (another reason why Gibson may not be looking the best).

As I say, I think it's pretty poor that with thiose three plus Webb and Diskin/Buderus that we aren't the most dangerous side in the league close to the opponents line.

To be fair that was also something I felt at times when Smith was coach as well. I do wonder if it's down to our 'plan' being more around making sure all of our 'playmakers' get the ball. All I know is I've seen sides with a single attacking ball handler look more structured and therefore dangerous near the tryline than Leeds.

Is this, after five or so seasons, finally recognition that McGuire is never a stand off?

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:47 am  

Richie wrote:

I see us now in a style of play a lot like the attack under Murray. It isn't about deep runners and crossing lines to make space. It's about short plays trying to punch a hole through the line, and then a back or halfback making something of that space. The Burrow break was a great example - Peacock makes a gap, takes two defenders out and offloads, Burow moves away from the gap to open it up and the back into it. Great when it works as it's hard to defend with it being so much down to just individual ability, but it looks bad when it doesn't work.

That style of play also suites wet weather better as opposed to dry weather as it's easier to wrong foot the d line. Something the ex harlequins coach (can't remeber his name) showed on boots n all last season. He said Leeds are a much better team when its wet than when it's dry because of how their attack is structured.. flat passes and individual footwork.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:48 am  

wertyuio wrote:

Is this, after five or so seasons, finally recognition that McGuire is never a stand off?

If you read all of that and came to that conclusion then you're a moron.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:50 am  

Richie wrote:

I see us now in a style of play a lot like the attack under Murray. It isn't about deep runners and crossing lines to make space. It's about short plays trying to punch a hole through the line, and then a back or halfback making something of that space. The Burrow break was a great example - Peacock makes a gap, takes two defenders out and offloads, Burow moves away from the gap to open it up and the back into it. Great when it works as it's hard to defend with it being so much down to just individual ability, but it looks bad when it doesn't work.

I'd agree with that but I think what we really need is to develop a plan B (fortunately we have 6 months to make it work)...and this to me is where your post and BrisbaneRhinos overlap....near the line, with the defensive line only a couple of meters away you need to use deep runners and crossing lines - nothing else (well apart from good kicking) will work consistently.

We are perfectly capable of it - especially when we use Webb to link up - and with a fit Buderus we should be better at it this year.

(BTW - I do think that we are already trying to mix our game up a bit more - we've just not got the hang of it yet - and this was part of the reason we dropped a lot of ball on saturday)

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:57 pm  

rpw wrote:

That style of play also suites wet weather better as opposed to dry weather as it's easier to wrong foot the d line. Something the ex harlequins coach (can't remeber his name) showed on boots n all last season. He said Leeds are a much better team when its wet than when it's dry because of how their attack is structured.. flat passes and individual footwork.

Tony Rea, who was the best thing about Sky's coverage by a factor approaching the millions.

As for the structure near the line, when has it ever been different? For pretty much all of the SL era, and probably going back further than that, we've looked dis-organised near the line. I remember a Bradford fan, probably Bullseye, saying that he was more worried when Leeds had the ball 50m out than 5m, and that was back in 2003/4.