: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:44 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

but they are probably much better than Paul Wellens or Ade Gardner

They're better at a code they've never played, when they're not even that great at a code they have played all their lives?

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:50 pm  

Eurob0y wrote:

What are you talking about? You only have to look at the way they play to see they are much better than plodders like Senior, Wellens, Gardner, Smith, Yeaman etc. The only english back who is decent is Gleeson. Armitage and Sackey are 2 players who would rip it up in rugby league.

What you mean is they look like they're quite athletic and a bit quick in a side full of plodders, in a game largely played at a slower pace that RL. Neither of them has shown they are anything special and that's in a code they've been playing for years. There's no indication they'll give RL the bits that are really missing from the England RL set-up, they don't even give RU the bits that are missing from the England RU set-up!

There are odd players who could probably convert and become RL internationals, but they're not any number of generic outside backs with a bit of pace but no real creativity.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:54 pm  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

They're better at a code they've never played, when they're not even that great at a code they have played all their lives?

probably yeah, winger and Fullback arent particularly complex positions in RL, it isnt like Hooker or Scrumhalf

the skills of players like Sackey or Armitage, Monye are easily transferrable,

And which sport do you think two of the 5 players they would be replacing started in?

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:04 pm  

Nobles comments are genuinely worrying As a sport we desperately need all our emphasis on developing talent and one of our most prominent figures comes out with this rubbish

What are you talking about? You only have to look at the way they play to see they are much better than plodders like Senior, Wellens, Gardner, Smith, Yeaman etc. The only english back who is decent is Gleeson. Armitage and Sackey are 2 players who would rip it up in rugby league.

Armitage and Sackey wouldn't be any better that Calderwood or Richie Barnett The only special Union player is Shane Williams

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:46 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

you're right, it doesnt, because Raynor isnt very good at this, and if as you say, Les's game is based on battering his way over the line for easy tries and raynors is running the ball out from in the 20 would you expect that Raynor would be taking more drives per game rather than fewer? could it be that there is more to Les's game, and he also frequently ran the ball out from his own twenty, he just made more yards doing it?

I didn't mention anything about easy tries. Vainikolo was the 'go to' player for Bradford, particularly when they got within 10m of the line. It's no surprise that he had the ball more. And he did have to bring the ball out as well, again meaning he'll have had more of the ball. This doesn't mean he was as effective at returning the ball or scooting on exit sets.

SmokeyTA wrote:

no the 2004 final is a great example of why vainikolo was and still is a better player than Gareth Raynor, Leeds made a plan and needed to stick to it to negate the threat of Les, nobody would have to do that with with raynor because he simply doesnt pose that much of a threat,

It was an example of Vainikolo having clearly identifiable strengths and weaknesses. They played that way to expose his weaknesses and negate his strengths. And this was when Les was at his peak and fully fit.

SmokeyTA wrote:

and the plan to kick behind Les wasnt to expose how poor he was at returning the ball, it was because he was less of a threat from 90 yards than from 9 yards, and tiring him out in the Bradford 20 made him less explosive when he did get the chance to run it in,

It wasn't to expose his poor returns as much as his poor speed when having to turn and adjust his positioning before setting off on a run (although it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that that is part of returning the ball). Calderwood used his pace to get to Vainikolo before he could get going. That slowness was a weakness in his game and one that was used and exploited to prevent him being as much of a threat in other areas.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Vainikolo was never poor in bringing it ouf his 20

Once he had the ball and had turned, building up some speed, he was fairly effective. The time it took to get to that stage was his weakness.

SmokeyTA wrote:

and to pretend Vainikolo and Raynor are as different as a prop and a half is just crazy,

I'm not pretending they're as different, just that the differences mean that the comparison is about as useful when talking in general terms ('he was a better winger than the best british wingers by a country mile').

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:03 pm  

trys'r'us wrote:

I didn't mention anything about easy tries. Vainikolo was the 'go to' player for Bradford, particularly when they got within 10m of the line. It's no surprise that he had the ball more. And he did have to bring the ball out as well, again meaning he'll have had more of the ball. This doesn't mean he was as effective at returning the ball or scooting on exit sets.

The point being, Vainikolo probably wasn’t as good at scooting on exist sets, because he was better at taking the first drive up and making more yards doing that than Raynor was at scooting on exit sets, If Vainikolo can make 15 yards from taking the first hit up, and Raynor can make 10 yards from scooting, what does it matter that Raynor is better at scooting Vainikolo was making a better contribution, and this he did, even in his worst season he made more yards per carry than Raynor, and made more carries per game

It was an example of Vainikolo having clearly identifiable strengths and weaknesses. They played that way to expose his weaknesses and negate his strengths. And this was when Les was at his peak and fully fit.

It wasn’t the spotting of a weakness, but it was the negating of a strength, it was an attempt to tire him out, it’s pretty much the most basic tactic in RL, if someone is a threat going forward, limit that threat as much as possible by making them defend more,

The fact that Leeds needed to do it, and the fact it so clearly works shows just what a force Les was

It wasn't to expose his poor returns as much as his poor speed when having to turn and adjust his positioning before setting off on a run (although it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that that is part of returning the ball). Calderwood used his pace to get to Vainikolo before he could get going. That slowness was a weakness in his game and one that was used and exploited to prevent him being as much of a threat in other areas.

Its clear that any player is less of a threat closed down quickly than allowed to build up a head of steam, this would be the same for Raynor, Gardner, or any other player you can think off,

What you seem to be saying is that Vainikolo has a weakness in his game, that weakness is he struggles to make an impact in the game when he is asked to make a lot of kick returns against a well organised defence targeting him with repeated and well placed deep kicks to his wing and a quick chase and good defence

That’s not really a weakness, im not sure there has been a player in the history of the game that that wouldn’t apply to

Once he had the ball and had turned, building up some speed, he was fairly effective. The time it took to get to that stage was his weakness.

he wasnt poor at it, yes he was better when he had a bit of room to work and yes he was better when he got a full head of steam, is there a winger in the world who this doesnt apply to
Is Gareth Raynor a better player before he reaches full speed? Is he a better player facing his own line? is he a better player with no room?

I'm not pretending they're as different, just that the differences mean that the comparison is about as useful when talking in general terms ('he was a better winger than the best british wingers by a country mile').

To be honest that’s rubbish, and it seems a bit of a cop out, Raynor and Vainikolo have the same jobs to do, the way they went about them are different but the results speak for themselves,

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:30 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The point being, Vainikolo probably wasn’t as good at scooting on exist sets, because he was better at taking the first drive up and making more yards doing that than Raynor was at scooting on exit sets, If Vainikolo can make 15 yards from taking the first hit up, and Raynor can make 10 yards from scooting, what does it matter that Raynor is better at scooting Vainikolo was making a better contribution, and this he did, even in his worst season he made more yards per carry than Raynor, and made more carries per game

Again, you're missing the point that Vainikolo got more of the ball because of how Bradford played. Plus he was in a more successful team. And he had a better distributor as his centre partner. Along with Bradford's style of play meaning he had more running opportunities. A contextually barren number does not tell the whole story.

SmokeyTA wrote:

It wasn’t the spotting of a weakness, but it was the negating of a strength, it was an attempt to tire him out, it’s pretty much the most basic tactic in RL, if someone is a threat going forward, limit that threat as much as possible by making them defend more,

It was both. I don't know how you can possibly argue that Vainikolo wasn't slow to turn and retrieve a kick. He was the same throughout his career, and it was something that was exploited whilst he was at Canberra as well. It was a weakness in his game.

SmokeyTA wrote:

The fact that Leeds needed to do it, and the fact it so clearly works shows just what a force Les was

They didn't need to do it. They chose to do it because it was a successful tactic, with Les's weakness in the area being exposed, but it wasn't as though Vainikolo was a one-man team who would've won them the GF otherwise.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Its clear that any player is less of a threat closed down quickly than allowed to build up a head of steam, this would be the same for Raynor, Gardner, or any other player you can think off,

Yes, that is clear. It's also clear that it was particularly effective with Vainikolo because of his slowness at getting back to deal with kicks. His weakness, if you will.

SmokeyTA wrote:

What you seem to be saying is that Vainikolo has a weakness in his game, that weakness is he struggles to make an impact in the game when he is asked to make a lot of kick returns against a well organised defence targeting him with repeated and well placed deep kicks to his wing and a quick chase and good defence

I think I've been fairly explicit, but just in case you've still not quite understood what I'm saying: Vainikolo was slow at turning and getting back to deal with kicks behind him into his corner. This was a weakness in his game. His slowness was the weakness. Other players are not as slow as he was and therefore it is not a weakness in their game.

SmokeyTA wrote:

That’s not really a weakness, im not sure there has been a player in the history of the game that that wouldn’t apply to

No, but that's not quite what I've been saying, is it?

SmokeyTA wrote:

he wasnt poor at it, yes he was better when he had a bit of room to work and yes he was better when he got a full head of steam, is there a winger in the world who this doesnt apply to
Is Gareth Raynor a better player before he reaches full speed? Is he a better player facing his own line? is he a better player with no room?

Hmm... you're still not quite getting it. Just to reiterate, his slowness in getting to the ball and getting up a full head of steam was his weakness. Other players (let's say Raynor, for example, as you're so insistent on including him in this) are much quicker at getting into position and getting going once they've got the ball. This is, therefore, not a weakness for them.

SmokeyTA wrote:

To be honest that’s rubbish, and it seems a bit of a cop out, Raynor and Vainikolo have the same jobs to do, the way they went about them are different but the results speak for themselves,

They have jobs which are similar in some respects and different in others. If Vainikolo had been put in the Hull team and Raynor in the Bradford team, their success would have differed. They would not have been suited to the role they had to play. That was my point.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:32 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

:shock: didn't you see him against england??

yep...in a position he had never played before and arguably, the most important position in Union. Scrum half in Union is a specialist position that links the backs and forwards. Bergamasco is a flanker, which means he needs to be able to make big hits, get around the park for 80 minutes and be able to pass the ball.......I reckon he would make a brilliant centre.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:05 pm  

trys'r'us wrote:

Again, you're missing the point that Vainikolo got more of the ball because of how Bradford played. Plus he was in a more successful team. And he had a better distributor as his centre partner. Along with Bradford's style of play meaning he had more running opportunities. A contextually barren number does not tell the whole story.

And because he was a better player,

For the season we are quoting, Hape played a grand total of 8 games, Les was playing outside those well known creative centres, James Evans and Nathan McAvoy,
Plus in the year we are talking about, les more successful team were knocked out of the playoffs by Raynors less successful team

It was both. I don't know how you can possibly argue that Vainikolo wasn't slow to turn and retrieve a kick. He was the same throughout his career, and it was something that was exploited whilst he was at Canberra as well. It was a weakness in his game.

im not saying he wasnt slow to turn and retrieve a kick, im saying it didnt matter, im saying though he was slower than most to turn and retrieve it, he was also stronger and had a much better fend,

It didn’t matter that players were closer to him when he picked it up because he was much much stronger than the other wingers in the game and would make 10 yards in the tackle,

They didn't need to do it. They chose to do it because it was a successful tactic, with Les's weakness in the area being exposed, but it wasn't as though Vainikolo was a one-man team who would've won them the GF otherwise.

Leeds won that game 3 tries to 2, Vainikolo could have easily been the difference, he scored 37 times that year, in 24 games, it would have been a dereliction of duty not to make a plan for him

Yes, that is clear. It's also clear that it was particularly effective with Vainikolo because of his slowness at getting back to deal with kicks. His weakness, if you will.

Except it isnt, because he still makes more yards on his average carry than Raynor or Gardner, so whilst it is clear he maybe slower turning round and fielding kicks, it made no difference because he was better going forward, and made more yards once he had picked it up, even though he may have picked it up slower

And even if we accept what you are saying is right, it still makes no sense as to that being the reason Leeds used the tactic, do you really think that Leeds used that tactic so that bradford started their set 2 yards further back rather than to tire out a man who had scored 37 times in that SL season?

I think I've been fairly explicit, but just in case you've still not quite understood what I'm saying: Vainikolo was slow at turning and getting back to deal with kicks behind him into his corner. This was a weakness in his game. His slowness was the weakness. Other players are not as slow as he was and therefore it is not a weakness in their game.


No, but that's not quite what I've been saying, is it?

yes, in effect it is, because it only becomes a weakness in that situation, otherwise, it doesnt even come up, the only time his 'weakness' could be exploited was when a good kick was repeatedly placed behind him, and a well drilled defence made a good kick chase, otherwise his speed in picking the ball up is irrellevant, and it is irrellevant anyway because the weakness is negated by his strength

but lets try looking at it in a different way, what did Leeds gain by kicking to that side, and why was it such a high profile tactic?

was it a) because Bradford started their next set deeper into their half because of Les's slowness in turning and picking the ball up
b) because it was an attacking ploy and actually an attempt to score or
c) because making Les turn and run to pick up the ball meant he was having to run when he wasnt a threat (i.e. when he didnt have the ball) and he also had to run from his own half with a well drilled kick chase leaving him with little room, which tired him out and left him much less of a threat going forward?

1 of these would be exploiting a weakness, 1 is clearly nonsense, and 1 would be negating a strength

Hmm... you're still not quite getting it. Just to reiterate, his slowness in getting to the ball and getting up a full head of steam was his weakness. Other players (let's say Raynor, for example, as you're so insistent on including him in this) are much quicker at getting into position and getting going once they've got the ball. This is, therefore, not a weakness for them.

and how does this benefit Hull? or how does it damage the oppositition? Raynor isnt making more yards off the back of it, nor more breaks, nor assists, so what benefit were the team getting from this being the case?

They have jobs which are similar in some respects and different in others. If Vainikolo had been put in the Hull team and Raynor in the Bradford team, their success would have differed. They would not have been suited to the role they had to play. That was my point.

you play to your strengths, Vainikolo was given the role he was because he played to his strengths, Raynor has the role he has because he plays to his strengths. Raynors strengths arent as effective as Vainikolos strengths, therefor Vainikolo was a better player, if Raynor could do what vainikolo did thats how he would be used

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:18 pm  

Vainikolo was in Gardners pocket pretty much every time he played against him, like he was in Alberts before him.

Ergo Gardner must be a better player.