Posted:
#1
telling us to take unders on Monday night?
0
Is Bellamy
...
Search 
Views: 419
Posts: 16
Posted:
#6
Its because of the wrestle, teams are allowed to wrestle, turn, rollover and lay on the attacking player, allowing the defenses to set and giving ball players next to no chance of creating.
That is why i would say about 40% of tries are coming off kicks, and a small portion of those tries off kicks where skill (good clean takes) is involved. The rest is this reliance of bat backs, the opp dropping the bomb, bad bounces. Luck factors.
As i said a few weeks ago when i saw that Dogs- Eagles game back in 93 was the reason why i fell in love with the game.
Now it has simply turned into a wrestling match where results are determined by the bounce of the ball.
The game has "weeded out" genuine league ball players.
IMO, Bellamy is the one to blame for this. He revolutionised the game with his wrestling (and the game allowed it), that was the blue print for success, teams then slowly started to adapt where now everyone is doing it. Combine that with the attitude of "lets not lose rather than lets try and win" is making our game an ugly spectacle.
I still remember the days where overs and unders used to be 47.5, 48.5 and even some games were around 53.5........
The game is allowing to much wrestle combine that with the fact that players are much more athletic and can cover more space as a result making it almost impossible for teams to get around defenses.
Around the early to mid 2000's was the perfect BALANCE of attack and defense.
Parra, dogs and Knights and Roosters were the top teams in that part of the decade. they were on top cause of there attack.
The top teams now are Dragons, Storm and Eagles, cause of there defense.
Its about adapting to the evolving and changing interpretations of the rules and pushing them to there limits. That is why Bellamy and Bennet are so good.
0
Posted:
#7
^ all good points, especially regarding the bellamy-storm-wrestle regime. I think Ricky Stuart also created a turning point after his Roosters won the comp in 2002. In 2003 every coach in the comp spoke about the need to match the Roosters' speed off their defensive line.
Re Bennett, imo he's a coach who adapts to the strengths of a playing group. In his early days with the Broncos even he will admit that the game plan could've be written on the back of a postage stamp. Because he had so many creative players like Langer and Walters ect ect (back in the glorious pre-salary cap days where wealthy clubs like the broncos keep all their talented players).
Once Langer left the Broncos became a different beast because their strength was suddenly size, with big forwards and huge outside backs like Tuqiri and Sailor. Bennett changed their structure and they basically stampeded their way to the premiership in 2000.
Bennett has a similar group nowadays at the Dragons to that 2000 Broncos team, so he plays to the strength of that group - simple, percentage football.
0
Posted:
#8
It's all cyclical I think. In the coming years, coaches will blow up deluxe about the slow play the ball and refs will start penalising, ignoring markers who aren't square, becoming liberal with the play the balls etc.
Then we'll have 5 or so years of touch football, and coaches will blow up with the fact that defence gets no reward (dominant, surrender) and coaches like Bellyache will make it an art form and we'll all be bitching about the rush of unders in the NRL.
0
Posted:
#9
That is why i am out of most things next season and beyond is to see what impact Bennett has on Mullen.
IMO, Mullen is a player who has been badly coached. This is the difference between Bennett and most other coaches. Bennett recognises the skillset of the player and maximises it to its potential. He doesnt try and make the player something that they arent naturally.
Soward never had a good pass on him, its not his natural game, He is a runner, organiser and fantastic kicker. Before Bennett, Soward was "average" at these even though it was his natural gift. He is now fantastic at executing these.
Mullen on the other hand naturally has an outstanding if not the best pass from left to right. I put him in the same sentence as Kevin Walters in this regard. Mullen has an ability like walters to beat the opposition centre with his outstanding face ball which is extremely difficult to execute but when done is basically impossible to stop. How many times have we seen Mullen do it this year? I havent. It seems as though it is being coached out of him. The Knights coach is trying to make him something he is not.
If Mullen stays fit, he will win a Dally M or go extremely close to one a few years into Bennetts regime.
0
Posted:
#10
Believe it or not I find no debate in either posting...Thought provoking too say the least...Gotta see the trees on occasions....
Agree J.T with the coach coaching to the strength of his side and playing percentage footy rather than mismatching positions in order to fit in with his style of coaching..Dragons started as a one out, complete the set boring like outfit and now they are far from that.. Nowadays,coaches are not good as they use to be..Same problem in many sports. Players and their development rests with coaching at all levels however in league more so at a higher level..One has only too look at Darius Boyd..Would he have been as good without Bennett?? Me thinks not..The failures opposed to the successes in regards to the modern day coach is being distanced more each year. You`ll be hard stretched to even get a 40% strike rate on that one..EIther way there`s only one Wayne Bennett as Tinkler and the Dragons know only too well..Where is the next Bennett?? Griffin perhaps?? Or a re-incarnation of himself perhaps..Coz it sure ain`t Bellamy.. I understand Battlers backflips of joy now..
Agree J.T with the coach coaching to the strength of his side and playing percentage footy rather than mismatching positions in order to fit in with his style of coaching..Dragons started as a one out, complete the set boring like outfit and now they are far from that.. Nowadays,coaches are not good as they use to be..Same problem in many sports. Players and their development rests with coaching at all levels however in league more so at a higher level..One has only too look at Darius Boyd..Would he have been as good without Bennett?? Me thinks not..The failures opposed to the successes in regards to the modern day coach is being distanced more each year. You`ll be hard stretched to even get a 40% strike rate on that one..EIther way there`s only one Wayne Bennett as Tinkler and the Dragons know only too well..Where is the next Bennett?? Griffin perhaps?? Or a re-incarnation of himself perhaps..Coz it sure ain`t Bellamy.. I understand Battlers backflips of joy now..
0
Posted:
#11
Quote Originally Posted by Aussie Battler:
It's all cyclical I think. In the coming years, coaches will blow up deluxe about the slow play the ball and refs will start penalising, ignoring markers who aren't square, becoming liberal with the play the balls etc.
Then we'll have 5 or so years of touch football, and coaches will blow up with the fact that defence gets no reward (dominant, surrender) and coaches like Bellyache will make it an art form and we'll all be bitching about the rush of unders in the NRL.
Books will adjust Battler,however can we handle watching it???
Doubt I can..
0
Posted:
#12
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
That is why i am out of most things next season and beyond is to see what impact Bennett has on Mullen.
IMO, Mullen is a player who has been badly coached. This is the difference between Bennett and most other coaches. Bennett recognises the skillset of the player and maximises it to its potential. He doesnt try and make the player something that they arent naturally.
Soward never had a good pass on him, its not his natural game, He is a runner, organiser and fantastic kicker. Before Bennett, Soward was "average" at these even though it was his natural gift. He is now fantastic at executing these.
Mullen on the other hand naturally has an outstanding if not the best pass from left to right. I put him in the same sentence as Kevin Walters in this regard. Mullen has an ability like walters to beat the opposition centre with his outstanding face ball which is extremely difficult to execute but when done is basically impossible to stop. How many times have we seen Mullen do it this year? I havent. It seems as though it is being coached out of him. The Knights coach is trying to make him something he is not.
If Mullen stays fit, he will win a Dally M or go extremely close to one a few years into Bennetts regime.
Fuck me dead Rostos, you are making complete sense 
fwiw, I agree completely. In Mullen's young junior days, he was carving it up as a centre who could ball play and had a good kicking game. He scored something like 70 tries in a junior season for the Taree Panthers.
He naturally moved in one slot to 5/8, where he captained the Knights to the 2004 SG Ball Premiership and played 5/8 for the Junior Kangaroos (outside Mitchell Pearce, incidentally).
He has been lambasted as inconsistent (with reason, too) ever since Andrew Johns retired and he was annointed the Newcastle No. 7, the day after his 20th birthday. Since then he has either played outside bums like Walsh and Dureau, or at halfback with bums outside him like Rogers and Henry.
I think he is best suited to play second receiver, even though there is little difference between the modern day halve positions. His game has been stifled first by Smith, now Stone. He's at his best when he takes the line on (which, he is very underrated at) and throws those face balls across the oppossition centre.
He is wasted turning forwards back inside straight at the A defenders in meaningless one out plays.
I look foward to his development under Wayne next year.
0
Posted:
#14
Quote Originally Posted by Jive_Turkey:
^ all good points, especially regarding the bellamy-storm-wrestle regime. I think Ricky Stuart also created a turning point after his Roosters won the comp in 2002. In 2003 every coach in the comp spoke about the need to match the Roosters' speed off their defensive line.
^ all good points, especially regarding the bellamy-storm-wrestle regime. I think Ricky Stuart also created a turning point after his Roosters won the comp in 2002. In 2003 every coach in the comp spoke about the need to match the Roosters' speed off their defensive line.
Yep, that was as blatant as the Melbourne wrestle
Natural though, that teams try and mimic what's successful.
0
Posted:
#15
Quote Originally Posted by Aussie Battler:
Fuck me dead Rostos, you are making complete sense
fwiw, I agree completely. In Mullen's young junior days, he was carving it up as a centre who could ball play and had a good kicking game. He scored something like 70 tries in a junior season for the Taree Panthers.
He naturally moved in one slot to 5/8, where he captained the Knights to the 2004 SG Ball Premiership and played 5/8 for the Junior Kangaroos (outside Mitchell Pearce, incidentally).
He has been lambasted as inconsistent (with reason, too) ever since Andrew Johns retired and he was annointed the Newcastle No. 7, the day after his 20th birthday. Since then he has either played outside bums like Walsh and Dureau, or at halfback with bums outside him like Rogers and Henry.
I think he is best suited to play second receiver, even though there is little difference between the modern day halve positions. His game has been stifled first by Smith, now Stone. He's at his best when he takes the line on (which, he is very underrated at) and throws those face balls across the oppossition centre.
He is wasted turning forwards back inside straight at the A defenders in meaningless one out plays.
I look foward to his development under Wayne next year.
The truth tooth AB.
I was just about to start looking for a gold ticket in my coco pops.
Talk about being Wonkered out..
0
Hot Forum Topics
