Jungle Out There Banner
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 51

Thread: Mr Woolf Advice

  1. #26
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,256
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scouse Don View Post
    FFS get a grip people.
    You were one of the people saying this over and over again during KC's reign. It's to your credit really, but you were massively wrong then and we wasted a number of years watching him inherit a champion side and turn it into one that played the worst RL I've ever seen from this club and scratching to make the play-offs.

    If Woolf had come in after KC I'd be giving him all the time in the world, because he would have a massive rebuilding job on his hands and would deserve his chance to rip it up and start fresh.

    But here we are again, with a coach inheriting a champion side that has dominated for 2 years and trying to change it. And for what, the 2 years he's here before he leaves for the NRL?

    I’d like to think I’m not some knee jerker, and I'm old enough to have seen us coached by (I think) 14 coaches along the way. Some have inherited bad situations, but this fella has inherited a dream job. We’ve made massive mistakes in the recent past handing champion sides over to coaches who ruined them, and seen years wasted as a result. How many trophies have we missed out on in the last 10 years or so appointing the wrong coaches?

    Never forget that this club hired Potter, Simmons and Cunningham.
    Last edited by Gray77; 14th May 2020 at 22:06.

  2. #27
    In The South Stand Tez the Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,392
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blobbynator View Post
    The lockdown and premature halt to the season could be a blessing for us. The likes of Roby, Knowles and Makinson didn't have a pre season so started the season on the backfoot and the early season injuries affected the balance of the side.

    I don't see SL returning until July at best with all sides probably back in training 3 weeks earlier so that will give the players a pre season and every team starting at the same level again rather than us playing catch up. It'll be important for the coaching staff, conditioners and players to make the most of that period and get themselves in great shape for the rest of the season. Percival probably won't be far off a return either and he'll be a big boost for us as that left Centre position was problematic (assume Bentley will step in in Percy's absence).

    It hasn't been a great start to the season but the WCC performance was good, so the players are capable of delivering, they just need to show that kind of level more often.

    We'll see what happens once the season restarts and whether we improve under Woolf or not after an average start.
    Yeah I’d go with that as well.

    Tough start for him in fairness. Started the season without Roby, Makinson and Knowles as you say who didn’t play until the Roosters game (think Makinson played in the win at Hull). We lost Coote against Salford so went to Warrington without Roby, Knowles, Makinson, Coote and then we lost Percival and Walmsley during the warm up/game. Regan Grace went off injured at Hull and obviously didn’t play against the Roosters. Then we had the Toronto game on that horrible night in Warrington.

    Last two performances against Huddersfield and Castleford were really poor.

    As you say, hopefully the break has given the players you mention a chance to recover and we can start the season properly whenever we get to playing.
    Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
    V

  3. #28
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Scouse Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blatherings on 13 Pro-Am podcast.Back home in St.Helens and in the South stand for service
    Posts
    8,217
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    You were one of the people saying this over and over again during KC's reign. It's to your credit really, but you were massively wrong then and we wasted a number of years watching him inherit a champion side and turn it into one that played the worst RL I've ever seen from this club and scratching to make the play-offs.

    If Woolf had come in after KC I'd be giving him all the time in the world, because he would have a massive rebuilding job on his hands and would deserve his chance to rip it up and start fresh.

    But here we are again, with a coach inheriting a champion side that has dominated for 2 years and trying to change it. And for what, the 2 years he's here before he leaves for the NRL?

    I’d like to think I’m not some knee jerker, and I'm old enough to have seen us coached by (I think) 14 coaches along the way. Some have inherited bad situations, but this fella has inherited a dream job. We’ve made massive mistakes in the recent past handing champion sides over to coaches who ruined them, and seen years wasted as a result. How many trophies have we missed out on in the last 10 years or so appointing the wrong coaches?

    Never forget that this club hired Potter, Simmons and Cunningham.

    6 games into the season Gray with the disruption of a WCC and several key players with no preseason. I hope I am not agreeing with you in a few months time but like KC everyone needs a chance to turn things around if they need to.KC couldn't maybe KW can. Not a lot needs fixing and all other teams have strengthened significantly.
    Learned comment from The Don

  4. #29
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Maghull
    Posts
    1,093
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    I think to sack anybody after so few games would be a knee jerk reaction. Who's to say the next coach would be any better? And, given that the club's income is radically down, could we even afford to sack him financially? As people have said, we have had a lot of injuries, including Walmsley pulling out close to the start of the game at the HJ. Let's at least give him to the end of what is going to be a truncated season.

  5. #30
    In The South Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    3,990
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    You were one of the people saying this over and over again during KC's reign. It's to your credit really, but you were massively wrong then and we wasted a number of years watching him inherit a champion side and turn it into one that played the worst RL I've ever seen from this club and scratching to make the play-offs.

    If Woolf had come in after KC I'd be giving him all the time in the world, because he would have a massive rebuilding job on his hands and would deserve his chance to rip it up and start fresh.

    But here we are again, with a coach inheriting a champion side that has dominated for 2 years and trying to change it. And for what, the 2 years he's here before he leaves for the NRL?

    Id like to think Im not some knee jerker, and I'm old enough to have seen us coached by (I think) 14 coaches along the way. Some have inherited bad situations, but this fella has inherited a dream job. Weve made massive mistakes in the recent past handing champion sides over to coaches who ruined them, and seen years wasted as a result. How many trophies have we missed out on in the last 10 years or so appointing the wrong coaches?

    Never forget that this club hired Potter, Simmons and Cunningham.
    Comparisons with KC are premature. Were six games in.

    I also dont think taking over from a universally loved and highly successful coach is necessarily a dream job. If you dont hit it off with everyone and win the lot then youre basically on a downward trajectory.

    Theres no doubt hes had a poor start, but it is just that: a start.

  6. #31
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,256
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    I’m not suggesting sacking him at all. Big clubs don’t sack coaches after 6 games, it would be ridiculous and no top coach would ever take a job here again if they thought they’d be booted out after 2 months.

    I’ve already said that Woolf will be given time, and that is only right. I also have no problem whatseover with him sticking to his beliefs and trying to get the team to play the way he wants us to. No coach should bend their beliefs to suit an individual job, I’ve stated that earlier in the thread.

    No, my issue is with the club giving him the job. He’s obviously looking at this job as a great shop window for the NRL. So was Justin it can be argued. But when coaches come here and do that it is right that we pick ones that believe in playing a certain way. In reality, only Holbrook of our last six appointments has actually believed in playing the game the way the majority like to see it played.

    I worry when we keep appointing coaches that so clearly have a philosophy that we don’t agree with. The wrestling, the playing down the middle, the lack of off loads and the predictability of play is not something I want from Saints, and Woolf seems keen on that style of play. It’s even worse when we have seen how successful we can be by playing the game creatively.

    So yes, he will be given time, and yes it’s only right that we allow him that. My problem isn’t with him, it’s with the club. When he leaves at the end of 2021 or 22 for an NRL job we will hopefully not have wasted more years by appointing a coach that didn’t really get what we want to see. We will be a 2 year memory for Woolf in 20 years, when he’s had an NRL career. This is our club, and I worry that we have left lots of trophies slip by over the last decade by appointing the wrong men.

  7. #32
    In The South Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    3,990
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    I’m not suggesting sacking him at all. Big clubs don’t sack coaches after 6 games, it would be ridiculous and no top coach would ever take a job here again if they thought they’d be booted out after 2 months.

    I’ve already said that Woolf will be given time, and that is only right. I also have no problem whatseover with him sticking to his beliefs and trying to get the team to play the way he wants us to. No coach should bend their beliefs to suit an individual job, I’ve stated that earlier in the thread.

    No, my issue is with the club giving him the job. He’s obviously looking at this job as a great shop window for the NRL. So was Justin it can be argued. But when coaches come here and do that it is right that we pick ones that believe in playing a certain way. In reality, only Holbrook of our last six appointments has actually believed in playing the game the way the majority like to see it played.

    I worry when we keep appointing coaches that so clearly have a philosophy that we don’t agree with. The wrestling, the playing down the middle, the lack of off loads and the predictability of play is not something I want from Saints, and Woolf seems keen on that style of play. It’s even worse when we have seen how successful we can be by playing the game creatively.

    So yes, he will be given time, and yes it’s only right that we allow him that. My problem isn’t with him, it’s with the club. When he leaves at the end of 2021 or 22 for an NRL job we will hopefully not have wasted more years by appointing a coach that didn’t really get what we want to see. We will be a 2 year memory for Woolf in 20 years, when he’s had an NRL career. This is our club, and I worry that we have left lots of trophies slip by over the last decade by appointing the wrong men.
    The thing is, I've not seen much evidence that Woolf is playing a conservative style. Sure, there's been a new emphasis on wrestling, but that's done when not in possession, and shouldn't rule out an expansive game plan in attack. And based on the evidence pre-appointment, I think there was every reason to think he would play an attacking style - look at the way Tonga have played under him.

    What I think has been the problem with Woolf is that we have lacked any discernible style of play at all. It may well be that so much emphasis has been placed on working on wrestling in the pre-season that the skills and attacking cohesion side of things has gone out of the window. Or it might be that missing key players for much of the season (and pre-season) has knackered our cohesion in attack. Maybe Sean Long had more of an influence on the way we played than we realised. But for whatever reason, we just don't seem to have any cohesive plan in attack, and we look like we're just short of ideas.

    That's one of the main reasons I think the comparisons with KC are wide of the mark. Under KC we had a very clear game plan that the players executed very consistently. The plan was completely bonkers, but it was a plan.
    Last edited by Dux; 15th May 2020 at 12:31.

  8. #33
    Learning All The Songs Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,062
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    The thing is, I've not seen much evidence that Woolf is playing a conservative style. Sure, there's been a new emphasis on wrestling, but that's done when not in possession, and shouldn't rule out an expansive game plan in attack. And based on the evidence pre-appointment, I think there was every reason to think he would play an attacking style - look at the way Tonga have played under him.

    What I think has been the problem with Woolf is that we have lacked any discernible style of play at all. It may well be that so much emphasis has been placed on working on wrestling in the pre-season that the skills and attacking cohesion side of things has gone out of the window. Or it might be that missing key players for much of the season (and pre-season) has knackered our cohesion in attack. But for whatever reason, we just don't seem to have any cohesive plan in attack, and we look like we're just short of ideas.

    That's one of the main reasons I think the comparisons with KC are wide of the mark. Under KC we had a very clear game plan that the players executed very consistently. The plan was completely bonkers, but it was a plan.
    That's actually a very good post and I hadn't really considered some of your points. Thinking about it logically now, if we do nothing this season then it will go down as a right off anyway, same as if Warrington somehow managed to win SL, so as much as it goes against my better judgement he deserves at least the rest of the season.

    To be honest, I would think we'd keep 95% of the squad together and if anyone leaves we should be able to replace them. I reckon, get back playing and see how it goes. I doubt he'll be going anywhere before the end of the season anyway.

  9. #34
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Scouse Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blatherings on 13 Pro-Am podcast.Back home in St.Helens and in the South stand for service
    Posts
    8,217
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    If KW's plan is to get a top NRL job after a stint here he won't get it unless we do find some attacking form which may be missing for any of the above reasons.I believe we will see a different team when and if we resume this year.

    From a personal viewpoint I think we should may be have made a couple of changes after last season as teams will be wise to many of our options and for example as much as I love Theo Fages I don't think he is the top quality 7 that we need.I hope we see Lewis Dodd sooner rather than later in the first team as he will improve our kicking game at least which is woeful at the moment and a real problem when not in the best form.Maybe a point for another thread.
    Learned comment from The Don

  10. #35
    In The South Stand STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    4,128
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    The thing is, I've not seen much evidence that Woolf is playing a conservative style. Sure, there's been a new emphasis on wrestling, but that's done when not in possession, and shouldn't rule out an expansive game plan in attack. And based on the evidence pre-appointment, I think there was every reason to think he would play an attacking style - look at the way Tonga have played under him.

    What I think has been the problem with Woolf is that we have lacked any discernible style of play at all. It may well be that so much emphasis has been placed on working on wrestling in the pre-season that the skills and attacking cohesion side of things has gone out of the window. Or it might be that missing key players for much of the season (and pre-season) has knackered our cohesion in attack. Maybe Sean Long had more of an influence on the way we played than we realised. But for whatever reason, we just don't seem to have any cohesive plan in attack, and we look like we're just short of ideas.

    That's one of the main reasons I think the comparisons with KC are wide of the mark. Under KC we had a very clear game plan that the players executed very consistently. The plan was completely bonkers, but it was a plan.
    I'm thinking completely the opposite, we are playing a very conservative style of rugby which the players don't look comfortable with. Some of that was down to the absence of Coote but we should have enough experience in Lomax and Fages to create some decent second phase instead of this easy to contain one man rugby.

    We've lost Percival but that's no excuse for the really bad quality of service to Naiqama, Makinson and Grace, for me he has not handled Welsby's development all that well taking the attacking role off him when he played full back, I don't think Holbrook would have played things that way. Woolf is also very conservative in that left centre position experimenting with Bentley and Knowles, Bentley was OK defensive wise in the WCC game but for the league games we needed a centre and should have given Simm a game or two.

    Another worry is when Lewis Dodd get a start will Woolf allow him to play his natural game in a team that is playing defensive safety first.

  11. #36
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,256
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scouse Don View Post
    If KW's plan is to get a top NRL job after a stint here he won't get it unless we do find some attacking form which may be missing for any of the above reasons.I believe we will see a different team when and if we resume this year.
    Over the course of a season we'll win alot more than we lose and will finish top 4 regardless because we have a good team. I'm not suggesting Woolf will have us mid table or losing 10-15 games, but I am suggesting we won't be as good as we could be.

    As for the NRL, well I disagree that attacking form is near the top of the list when it comes to what the clubs want. The pinnacle of the game over there is Origin, which are defensive struggles where completion of sets, defensive discipline, conditioning and a good kicking game are valued as the most important things. At club level the half backs and outside backs are generally good enough to create stuff regardless, so if Woolf is eyeing a top job there he will want to do the above things really well. I'm hoping that our halfs and outside backs are good enough to create stuff as well, because IMO their opportunities will be alot less than they were under Holbrook.

  12. #37
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,256
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    I'm thinking completely the opposite, we are playing a very conservative style of rugby which the players don't look comfortable with. Some of that was down to the absence of Coote but we should have enough experience in Lomax and Fages to create some decent second phase instead of this easy to contain one man rugby.

    We've lost Percival but that's no excuse for the really bad quality of service to Naiqama, Makinson and Grace, for me he has not handled Welsby's development all that well taking the attacking role off him when he played full back, I don't think Holbrook would have played things that way. Woolf is also very conservative in that left centre position experimenting with Bentley and Knowles, Bentley was OK defensive wise in the WCC game but for the league games we needed a centre and should have given Simm a game or two.

    Another worry is when Lewis Dodd get a start will Woolf allow him to play his natural game in a team that is playing defensive safety first.
    Bingo.

  13. #38
    In The South Stand Tez the Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,392
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    The thing is, I've not seen much evidence that Woolf is playing a conservative style. Sure, there's been a new emphasis on wrestling, but that's done when not in possession, and shouldn't rule out an expansive game plan in attack. And based on the evidence pre-appointment, I think there was every reason to think he would play an attacking style - look at the way Tonga have played under him.

    What I think has been the problem with Woolf is that we have lacked any discernible style of play at all. It may well be that so much emphasis has been placed on working on wrestling in the pre-season that the skills and attacking cohesion side of things has gone out of the window. Or it might be that missing key players for much of the season (and pre-season) has knackered our cohesion in attack. Maybe Sean Long had more of an influence on the way we played than we realised. But for whatever reason, we just don't seem to have any cohesive plan in attack, and we look like we're just short of ideas.

    That's one of the main reasons I think the comparisons with KC are wide of the mark. Under KC we had a very clear game plan that the players executed very consistently. The plan was completely bonkers, but it was a plan.
    Some good points there mate, particularly in terms of Sean Long. I’m sure Richard Marshall is a good coach in his own right but Longy arguably had the best rugby brain of his generation over here. I don’t think we’ve attacked quite as well since he left last summer to be fair. Obviously we blew Wigan away physically in the semi-final but I think you might have a point there.
    Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
    V

  14. #39
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    I don't often post on playing issues but sometimes I wonder about how things are viewed.
    There are threads on here mocking Wire and their supporters. Remember when they turned on their coach...
    Now we are already judging a new coach who only recently coached a team that beat Australia.
    There was no lack of attacking flair in the Salford game & we would potentially have been World Champions if we had taken our chances.
    Last season under Justin we often failed to click and if we are honest there were a number of games that we were lucky to win.
    Eamon mentioned in his podcast that pre-season & injuries have disrupted our start. Coote is a good example. When on form we look a different team. Yet in his first few games & when coming back from injury people have had doubts about even him. Remember Wembley.
    I've not a problem having a go at the coach if we don't develop a Saints style approach but it is 6 games in.
    Finally we played a conservative style in the Grand Final so all things Justin were not wonderful.
    Sorry rant over - let's just hope we get on the field soon and can use some evidence for conclusions.

  15. #40
    In The South Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    3,559
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    I'm thinking completely the opposite, we are playing a very conservative style of rugby which the players don't look comfortable with. Some of that was down to the absence of Coote but we should have enough experience in Lomax and Fages to create some decent second phase instead of this easy to contain one man rugby.

    We've lost Percival but that's no excuse for the really bad quality of service to Naiqama, Makinson and Grace, for me he has not handled Welsby's development all that well taking the attacking role off him when he played full back, I don't think Holbrook would have played things that way. Woolf is also very conservative in that left centre position experimenting with Bentley and Knowles, Bentley was OK defensive wise in the WCC game but for the league games we needed a centre and should have given Simm a game or two.

    Another worry is when Lewis Dodd get a start will Woolf allow him to play his natural game in a team that is playing defensive safety first.
    I think you're right
    Dave Woods: the guy who makes Eddie Hemmings look like a decent commentator

  16. #41
    In The South Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    3,990
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    I'm thinking completely the opposite, we are playing a very conservative style of rugby which the players don't look comfortable with. Some of that was down to the absence of Coote but we should have enough experience in Lomax and Fages to create some decent second phase instead of this easy to contain one man rugby.

    We've lost Percival but that's no excuse for the really bad quality of service to Naiqama, Makinson and Grace, for me he has not handled Welsby's development all that well taking the attacking role off him when he played full back, I don't think Holbrook would have played things that way. Woolf is also very conservative in that left centre position experimenting with Bentley and Knowles, Bentley was OK defensive wise in the WCC game but for the league games we needed a centre and should have given Simm a game or two.

    Another worry is when Lewis Dodd get a start will Woolf allow him to play his natural game in a team that is playing defensive safety first.
    I agree that Woolf has made some disappointingly conservative decisions about that centre position. I also agree that his handling of Welsby hasn't been great, but it doesn't really fit with your theory. If Woolf was so safety-first, why would he keep playing a teenager who has been making mistakes and missing tackles in one of the most important positions on the field? If anything his handling of Welsby has been too high-risk.

    I wouldn't disagree for a second that the quality of service to our edges has been poor - as I said in my earlier post, we've looked completely disjointed in attack - but I just don't see this as evidence of a plan (rather, the opposite).

  17. #42
    Learning All The Songs Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,062
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    I agree that Woolf has made some disappointingly conservative decisions about that centre position. I also agree that his handling of Welsby hasn't been great, but it doesn't really fit with your theory. If Woolf was so safety-first, why would he keep playing a teenager who has been making mistakes and missing tackles in one of the most important positions on the field? If anything his handling of Welsby has been too high-risk.

    I wouldn't disagree for a second that the quality of service to our edges has been poor - as I said in my earlier post, we've looked completely disjointed in attack - but I just don't see this as evidence of a plan (rather, the opposite).
    Do you get the feeling he maybe thought we'd just go and wipe the floor again without putting too much thought into it? I'm not suggesting he did, I'm just putting it out there. It's a strange one, maybe he thought our attack was ok so wanted to put his mark on the defense and it hasn't really worked out that way so far.

  18. #43
    In The South Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    3,990
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    Do you get the feeling he maybe thought we'd just go and wipe the floor again without putting too much thought into it? I'm not suggesting he did, I'm just putting it out there. It's a strange one, maybe he thought our attack was ok so wanted to put his mark on the defense and it hasn't really worked out that way so far.
    I think there could be an element of that - it was obviously the area that needed the least work so he may have just taken his eye off the ball.

  19. #44
    In The South Stand STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    4,128
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    I agree that Woolf has made some disappointingly conservative decisions about that centre position. I also agree that his handling of Welsby hasn't been great, but it doesn't really fit with your theory. If Woolf was so safety-first, why would he keep playing a teenager who has been making mistakes and missing tackles in one of the most important positions on the field? If anything his handling of Welsby has been too high-risk.

    I wouldn't disagree for a second that the quality of service to our edges has been poor - as I said in my earlier post, we've looked completely disjointed in attack - but I just don't see this as evidence of a plan (rather, the opposite).
    I imagine Woolf didn't want to play Lomax or Makinson at full back because it would have unbalanced the side so in his safety first wisdom he left Welsby in a very limited role when we were in the attacking mode. It took a few games of replays to observe that the last 2 games he played Jack Welsby behind the PTB following Walmsley, Thompson or LMS at first receiver this meant he couldn't join the attacking line out wide and we ended up with a flat lateral attack with no inside options for our wingers.

    Another point is that Woolf has changed Fages game, he is not taking on the line as much and has only made one line break so far, Woolf has developed Fages with more of an attack kicking game he had made 82 attack kicks last season in the first 6 games this season he is already on 41 attack kicks, part of that was because Coote was missing.

    For around 3 games we had no attack full back (Welsby) and a half back (Fages) not taking on the line, all we had was Lomax overworked and the opposition soon worked that one out and that was one of the reasons our wingers found it very difficult to score trys compared to last season.

    Hopefully with all our back line fully fit we can get back on the bike, I hope Woolf does his best to get this balance right, at the moment it does feel like one of those KC diluted game plans from A to Z.

  20. #45
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    To me the last game against Cas showed a very worrying playing style, however we need to look at the context of the game, there was doubts it was going to be on and let’s face it our teams mind MAY have been on more important things ( I know somehow this didn’t bother Cas).

    So in my mind let’s see what happens when we re-start.

  21. #46
    In The West Stand Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,508
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    I imagine Woolf didn't want to play Lomax or Makinson at full back because it would have unbalanced the side so in his safety first wisdom he left Welsby in a very limited role when we were in the attacking mode. It took a few games of replays to observe that the last 2 games he played Jack Welsby behind the PTB following Walmsley, Thompson or LMS at first receiver this meant he couldn't join the attacking line out wide and we ended up with a flat lateral attack with no inside options for our wingers.

    Another point is that Woolf has changed Fages game, he is not taking on the line as much and has only made one line break so far, Woolf has developed Fages with more of an attack kicking game he had made 82 attack kicks last season in the first 6 games this season he is already on 41 attack kicks, part of that was because Coote was missing.

    For around 3 games we had no attack full back (Welsby) and a half back (Fages) not taking on the line, all we had was Lomax overworked and the opposition soon worked that one out and that was one of the reasons our wingers found it very difficult to score trys compared to last season.

    Hopefully with all our back line fully fit we can get back on the bike, I hope Woolf does his best to get this balance right, at the moment it does feel like one of those KC diluted game plans from A to Z.
    A good analysis, perhaps you could send it to KW

  22. #47
    In The South Stand Tez the Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,392
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    I imagine Woolf didn't want to play Lomax or Makinson at full back because it would have unbalanced the side so in his safety first wisdom he left Welsby in a very limited role when we were in the attacking mode. It took a few games of replays to observe that the last 2 games he played Jack Welsby behind the PTB following Walmsley, Thompson or LMS at first receiver this meant he couldn't join the attacking line out wide and we ended up with a flat lateral attack with no inside options for our wingers.
    I think that could be a conditioning decision as much as anything though, also think it’s harsh to say that it’s a very limited role with regards to supporting his forwards, it’s important IMO, particularly in your own half. James Tedesco wouldn’t score half the tries he does if he wasn’t supporting his forwards. When Walmsley and Thompson are carrying the ball, I’d want the full back to be in support because there’s a good chance they’ll either offload or make a break and a good full back should be their on their shoulder when they do. When we got into more attacking areas of the pitch, he was joining the line a bit wider.

    I get what you’re saying but I think it’s asking a lot to expect a young full back to be everywhere like you’d expect more senior full backs to be, physically it’s a bloody hard role. It takes a while for a full back to have the conditioning and understanding of where to be and when, it’ll take some time with him. There were times when he was a bit out of position in attack or he didn’t quite get into position quick enough but he’ll improve with time.

    I thought Woolf left him in for a couple of games to long to be honest though, I’m not sure he should have played against Huddersfield and certainly not against Castleford. I thought those last two games did him more harm than good by selecting him.
    Last edited by Tez the Saint; 17th May 2020 at 09:33.
    Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
    V

  23. #48
    Learning All The Songs Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,062
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tez the Saint View Post
    I think that could be a conditioning decision as much as anything though, also think it’s harsh to say that it’s a very limited role with regards to supporting his forwards, it’s important IMO, particularly in your own half. James Tedesco wouldn’t score half the tries he does if he wasn’t supporting his forwards. When Walmsley and Thompson are carrying the ball, I’d want the full back to be in support because there’s a good chance they’ll either offload or make a break and a good full back should be their on their shoulder when they do. When we got into more attacking areas of the pitch, he was joining the line a bit wider.

    I get what you’re saying but I think it’s asking a lot to expect a young full back to be everywhere like you’d expect more senior full backs to be, physically it’s a bloody hard role. It takes a while for a full back to have the conditioning and understanding of where to be and when, it’ll take some time with him. There were times when he was a bit out of position in attack or he didn’t quite get into position quick enough but he’ll improve with time.

    I thought Woolf left him in for a couple of games to long to be honest though, I’m not sure he should have played against Huddersfield and certainly not against Castleford. I thought those last two games did him more harm than good by selecting him.
    I think the point is Tez, he probably wasn't ready to play FB. I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing but it wouldn't have been difficult to change him and Lomax around once it became clear it wasn't working. Didn't he also play him on the wing at some point? I know I've said this before but I don't think Welsby is ever going to be a SL full back. But I do think he'll make a very good 6 and potentially 13 later on in his career.

  24. #49
    In The South Stand STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    4,128
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tez the Saint View Post
    I think that could be a conditioning decision as much as anything though, also think it’s harsh to say that it’s a very limited role with regards to supporting his forwards, it’s important IMO, particularly in your own half. James Tedesco wouldn’t score half the tries he does if he wasn’t supporting his forwards. When Walmsley and Thompson are carrying the ball, I’d want the full back to be in support because there’s a good chance they’ll either offload or make a break and a good full back should be their on their shoulder when they do. When we got into more attacking areas of the pitch, he was joining the line a bit wider.

    I get what you’re saying but I think it’s asking a lot to expect a young full back to be everywhere like you’d expect more senior full backs to be, physically it’s a bloody hard role. It takes a while for a full back to have the conditioning and understanding of where to be and when, it’ll take some time with him. There were times when he was a bit out of position in attack or he didn’t quite get into position quick enough but he’ll improve with time.

    I thought Woolf left him in for a couple of games to long to be honest though, I’m not sure he should have played against Huddersfield and certainly not against Castleford. I thought those last two games did him more harm than good by selecting him.
    I just don't think he has handled Welsby very well, when I mentioned him being behind the PTB supporting the first receiver it was down a very narrow channel for 4 drives. I,ve never seen Wellens, Lomax or Coote play like that in such a condensed way because it cuts out any link play options on the outer edges, the only reward from Woolf's tactic was one support break from LMS in all 80 mins of the game.

    For me Welsby should have trained with Coote whilst Coote was on a running capacity recovery to learn and develop his game, instead it got to one point that Welsby was useless and got slated on here as a "Joe Average" because of his lack of involvement. At that point as you suggest he should have been taken out of the team for a couple of games, Holbrook would have worked on his passing skills like he did with most of the team last season, for me this season Welsby has been badly coached.

    What is a concern and I think its been mentioned on earlier threads is our mental approach to games with more emphasis on defence with very little attacking shapes and set moves, once we get stuck in that approach we become as a team very predictable and average. Percival mentioned in a podcast on this emphasis on defence and his attempt to put a big hit on BMM, would he have attempted that last season I don't think he would, so instead he got 3 - 4 months out of the game for his defensive efforts.

  25. #50
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    967
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    Same here, mainly because there is clear evidence our attacking structure is nowhere near good enough even taking into account players missing or players recovering.
    I like Fages, but I think we missed a trick not going for Hastings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •