Are we premiership contenders?

[Hazza]

Any team with our record should really be regarded as a contender.

It's an interesting question though. I'm sure most people would say we haven't reached our potential, particularly in attack. So we have been quite solid without being quite there with the best form in the comp. Injuries to key players hasn't helped.

Form suggests we are exactly where we should be. We are generally beating clubs below us and losing to the handful above us. We should really have beaten Souths, but should also have nailed Manly and the Cows.

It's only the Storm who have towelled us up, but that was after a short turnaround and they are a well drilled team. IMO only Cronulla have picked us apart for a good chunk of a game. The Roosters was a disappointing performance, but they don't scare me as much as Cronulla.

We'll be OK if our attack starts clicking. I think we become genuine contenders if Hodgo gets his combo right with the halves in our attacking 20. That's the one part of the game which is really letting us down compared to the top 3-4 teams.

The storm didn't towell us up at all. They started all over us but if you remember we were getting back in the game, then threw an intercept that could've easy gone our way, we score that we're back within 6. Wasn't as much in that game as it looked. Against both Souths and Easts we were decimated so can't read anything in to either of those 2 games. And still should've beaten Souths with our entire right edge out, there was a bees in that game.

We also go to golden point with the Roosters if Cotric doesn't completely balls that pass up to Croker.

All three games could've still gone our way. The only games I've been disappointed in this year were the Cowboys in Canberra and Manly.

Yep. Correct. The only 2 games where we got beat on attitude.

[gangrenous]

I disagree on the Storm game. Thought they were cruising in second gear and would have readily taken control back had the Raiders scored again. I thought the scoreline flattered us in that one.

[Azza]

I think that sums it up though. We were close against two of the three top sides but didn't take the opportunities we had to get on top in those matches. Against the better sides you won't get many chances so you need to find a way to just take advantage of the chances you get.

[The Nickman]

I think that sums it up though. We were close against two of the three top sides but didn't take the opportunities we had to get on top in those matches. Against the better sides you won't get many chances so you need to find a way to just take advantage of the chances you get.

Or you learn from those missed opportunities and get better from it.

I'd prefer we won those games in the finals than in the first half of the season.

[Azza]

Yeah but that doesn't derogate from anything I've said. I don't believe we can seriously know whether we are legitimate contenders until we see the team start to take those scant opportunities against the better sides.

[The Nickman]

Agree to disagree then.

[Azza]

I don't agree to that

[Seiffert82]

Any team with our record should really be regarded as a contender.

It's an interesting question though. I'm sure most people would say we haven't reached our potential, particularly in attack. So we have been quite solid without being quite there with the best form in the comp. Injuries to key players hasn't helped.

Form suggests we are exactly where we should be. We are generally beating clubs below us and losing to the handful above us. We should really have beaten Souths, but should also have nailed Manly and the Cows.

It's only the Storm who have towelled us up, but that was after a short turnaround and they are a well drilled team. IMO only Cronulla have picked us apart for a good chunk of a game. The Roosters was a disappointing performance, but they don't scare me as much as Cronulla.

We'll be OK if our attack starts clicking. I think we become genuine contenders if Hodgo gets his combo right with the halves in our attacking 20. That's the one part of the game which is really letting us down compared to the top 3-4 teams.

The storm didn't towell us up at all. They started all over us but if you remember we were getting back in the game, then threw an intercept that could've easy gone our way, we score that we're back within 6. Wasn't as much in that game as it looked. Against both Souths and Easts we were decimated so can't read anything in to either of those 2 games. And still should've beaten Souths with our entire right edge out, there was a bees in that game.

Yeah, I don't know. In reality we didn't look close to scoring a well constructed try against the Storm. We jagged a couple of lucky ones from broken field play, but generally speaking our attack was horrible. In saying that, the Storm were well rested with an 8 day turnaround and we played off a 5 day turnaround from the Gold Coast match, so they looked much fresher from the kickoff.

[simo]

Yeah but that doesn't derogate from anything I've said. I don't believe we can seriously know whether we are legitimate contenders until we see the team start to take those scant opportunities against the better sides.

Like the sharks....

[Azza]

Those drug cheats? lol

But yeah, fair point. We did do a good job against the Sharks, despite our second half clock off, probably our best win of the year. Still, I don't consider them in the same tier as the Roosters/Storm/Rabbits

[simo]

Those drug cheats? lol

But yeah, fair point. We did do a good job against the Sharks, despite our second half clock off, probably our best win of the year. Still, I don't consider them in the same tier as the Roosters/Storm/Rabbits

Id rather play souths than sharks

[Azza]

I actually agree - we seem to struggle against the Sharks. But overall I think Souths are (at this stage) in a tier above them. Having said that, they haven't been playing that well recently so this could all change over the next few weeks

[Botman]

Yeah i agree too. The Sharks really seem to get under the Raiders skins. Their physical, nigglely style seems to put us off our game. Souths play more into the style we're comfortable with imo.
Souths are a better team but the old "styles makes fights" rings true here. I'd take my chances with the bunnies

[Roger Kenworthy]

I don't agree to that

At least agree to disagree that you disagree.

[The Nickman]

I don't agree to that

At least agree to disagree that you disagree.

I don't agree to that.

[Seiffert82]

Yeah i agree too. The Sharks really seem to get under the Raiders skins. Their physical, nigglely style seems to put us off our game. Souths play more into the style we're comfortable with imo.
Souths are a better team but the old "styles makes fights" rings true here. I'd take my chances with the bunnies

The Sharks throw much more at you in attack with Graham in the lineup.

The Bunnies are a classic Wayne Bennett team. They try to dominate you in the forwards and get over the line with a well drilled, but incredibly predictable attack. Without Inglis they can be pretty pedestrian.

I'd prefer to play Souths over Cronulla every time. Not even close.

[Green Blogger]

I disagree on the Storm game. Thought they were cruising in second gear and would have readily taken control back had the Raiders scored again. I thought the scoreline flattered us in that one.

I don't give the Storm loss much thought. It was very early in the season when the Storm are always settled and good. This combined with the unfair advantage provided through the draw - from memory they were coming off a ten day turnaround whilst we were on a short week - meant that we were always likely to get jumped early in that one.

[BadnMean]

I disagree on the Storm game. Thought they were cruising in second gear and would have readily taken control back had the Raiders scored again. I thought the scoreline flattered us in that one.

I don't give the Storm loss much thought. It was very early in the season when the Storm are always settled and good. This combined with the unfair advantage provided through the draw - from memory they were coming off a ten day turnaround whilst we were on a short week - meant that we were always likely to get jumped early in that one.

I think the stat is at 80-90% of teams losing after that short turnaround no matter who they play.

[The Nickman]

I disagree on the Storm game. Thought they were cruising in second gear and would have readily taken control back had the Raiders scored again. I thought the scoreline flattered us in that one.

I don't give the Storm loss much thought. It was very early in the season when the Storm are always settled and good. This combined with the unfair advantage provided through the draw - from memory they were coming off a ten day turnaround whilst we were on a short week - meant that we were always likely to get jumped early in that one.

I think the stat is at 80-90% of teams losing after that short turnaround no matter who they play.

It's true, the Sharks lost to us last round due to a short turnaround too.

[BadnMean]

Did they? Interesting.

Maybe we are still looking for a win vs a top side then. I'd still say missing so many players vs them makes it a good win.

[Sid]

Raiders still have 1 more 5 day short turnaround (round 20 vs Warriors @ Mt Smart)
I don't think any other teams have short turnaround against Raiders

[The Nickman]

Raiders still have 1 more 5 day short turnaround (round 20 vs Warriors @ Mt Smart)
not sure if any other teams have short turnaround against Raiders

What about Roosters in Round 21?? 7 day turnaround vs 9.

[Sid]

Raiders still have 1 more 5 day short turnaround (round 20 vs Warriors @ Mt Smart)
not sure if any other teams have short turnaround against Raiders

What about Roosters in Round 21?? 7 day turnaround vs 9.

my post should have read
Raiders still have 1 more 5 day short turnaround (round 20 vs Warriors @ Mt Smart)
not sure if any other teams have a 5 day short turnaround against Raiders

rather than meaning 'shorter turnaround'

[Beejay]

To sum up my thoughts on our chances, I think there's only 5 teams that could win it, and I think the bookies have it in the right order (as below);

Roosters can clearly go up another 2 or 3 gears, they've been putting along.
Storm have proven over the years they can perform in the big games, and they are currently the most consistently good team this year.
Rabbits have class across their team and a coach that has proven to get his teams to improve come finals.
Sharks have a team that has proven to lift and has class throughout, but a rookie coach that's untested.

Raiders have not beaten the top 3 sides even though they were in the game. If those 3 can go to another level come finals - can the Raiders? Recent seasons say no, but with a changed spine and forwards it's yet to be proven. Our defence has been good this year, but there are still times when our ruck control leaves a lot to be desired, namely second half against the Sharks, there were large periods in that game where we just couldn't slow their momentum. Storm/Roosters/Sharks in particular have shown for years they are able to change momentum or at least slow it with great ruck control and fast linespeed.
At the moment we've proven we can hang with the top sides, but when the whips are cracking, can we rise to another level to go with them?
Only time will tell.

[Bay 67]

The more I think about it, the more I think about us possibly being a contender, the more I believe that John Bateman is the key.

Every team that wins the premiership has a culture that wills to win - the Storm being the best example. The Storm have been the anti-Raiders... if they get behind, even by quite a large margin, I never write them off. If they get ahead, they tend to go on with the job.

It's the reason that journeymen look like stars in the Storm system. They have a job, they know it and they are held to account if they fail to execute.

More than just being an excellent hooker (and quite possibly a cheating grub), Cam Smith sets the tone for that team. He demands accountability. As much as I love Jarrod Croker as a player, I don't think he has that ruthless gene; and I think Hodgson has one too many brain snaps to earn the level of respect required.

Bateman is all attitude. He is a winner and demands the same level of competitiveness from the players around him. Without him we found ways to lose both the Roosters and Souths games - typical pre-Bateman Raiders games - and then fell in a hole for the Cowboys game.

Bateman comes back and even when we're struggling - as we did in the Eels and Sharks games - we found a way to win. When we got on top against the Tigers, we were ruthless.

I have seen him tear strips off some of our players and I have seen them lift as a consequence, whereas in previous seasons I have seen heads drop and their games fade.

There is something different in our team this year. Wighton is a great example - he makes a mistake this year and then he gets back on the horse. Previous seasons he goes into his shell.

I'm probably giving Bateman too much credit but if you want to instill a culture in players - you need an enforcer. He is ours.

[Finchy]

Bateman comes back and even when we're struggling - as we did in the Eels and Sharks games - we found a way to win.

I don't recall struggling against the Eels. Didn't we beat them 19-0?

[The Nickman]

Bateman comes back and even when we're struggling - as we did in the Eels and Sharks games - we found a way to win.

I don't recall struggling against the Eels. Didn't we beat them 19-0?

I'm thinking he means Bulldogs.

[magoo]

If we are to be genuine contenders, then no excuses are acceptable. All this talk about 5 day turnaround needs to stop. It is what it is,just get on with it. Complaints or excuses won't change anything.

[The Nickman]

Spot on, magoo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Bay 67]

Bateman comes back and even when we're struggling - as we did in the Eels and Sharks games - we found a way to win.

I don't recall struggling against the Eels. Didn't we beat them 19-0?

Sorry yeah... I meant the Bulldogs game.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

I disagree on the Storm game. Thought they were cruising in second gear and would have readily taken control back had the Raiders scored again. I thought the scoreline flattered us in that one.

I don't give the Storm loss much thought. It was very early in the season when the Storm are always settled and good. This combined with the unfair advantage provided through the draw - from memory they were coming off a ten day turnaround whilst we were on a short week - meant that we were always likely to get jumped early in that one.

I agree.

Certainly not cranking emo music over the loss. Just disagree with the characterisation of this match as a narrow loss. That wasn’t how I saw it.

[gangrenous]

If we are to be genuine contenders, then no excuses are acceptable. All this talk about 5 day turnaround needs to stop. It is what it is,just get on with it. Complaints or excuses won't change anything.

Look, I think most people are on board with not excusing losses from the team’s perspective.

But if the stat is truly 80-90% of teams on a five day turnaround lose and you’re analysing results - If you don’t consider that in your analysis you’re a numpty.

The team themselves should be looking at that stat and asking “What can we do different in our 5 day preparations to counter that statistic?” Covering your eyes and yelling “no excuses” is not the answer.

[Lui_Bon]

The more I think about it, the more I think about us possibly being a contender, the more I believe that John Bateman is the key.

Bateman is all attitude. He is a winner and demands the same level of competitiveness from the players around him. Without him we found ways to lose both the Roosters and Souths games - typical pre-Bateman Raiders games - and then fell in a hole for the Cowboys game.

I have seen him tear strips off some of our players and I have seen them lift as a consequence, whereas in previous seasons I have seen heads drop and their games fade.

There is something different in our team this year. Wighton is a great example - he makes a mistake this year and then he gets back on the horse. Previous seasons he goes into his shell.

I'm probably giving Bateman too much credit but if you want to instill a culture in players - you need an enforcer. He is ours.

Great post and to summarise (and paraphrase) I agree. Possibly the preseason emphasis on defence is also paying off, and I absolutely guarantee that losing Austin, Boyd and Paulo was a fantastic defensive bonus, but the winning, or at least never-give-up, attitude, is embodied by John Bateman. He is the anti-James Graham. A winner.

[pickles]

If we are to be genuine contenders, then no excuses are acceptable. All this talk about 5 day turnaround needs to stop. It is what it is,just get on with it. Complaints or excuses won't change anything.

Look, I think most people are on board with not excusing losses from the team’s perspective.

But if the stat is truly 80-90% of teams on a five day turnaround lose and you’re analysing results - If you don’t consider that in your analysis you’re a numpty.

The team themselves should be looking at that stat and asking “What can we do different in our 5 day preparations to counter that statistic?” Covering your eyes and yelling “no excuses” is not the answer.

I read an article today on the roar that was an analysis of the 2019 draw. They were saying that for teams backing up from 5 day turn arounds won about 45% of the time. It was teams with 5 day turn arounds and significant travel that lost 90% of the time.

Really it should be possible to make a draw that eliminates the need for this at all.

We only have one more this season, against the warriors in NZ which stacks the odds against us for that but there will be many other factors at play by the time that rolls around.

[greeneyed]

If we are to be genuine contenders, then no excuses are acceptable. All this talk about 5 day turnaround needs to stop. It is what it is,just get on with it. Complaints or excuses won't change anything.

Look, I think most people are on board with not excusing losses from the team’s perspective.

But if the stat is truly 80-90% of teams on a five day turnaround lose and you’re analysing results - If you don’t consider that in your analysis you’re a numpty.

The team themselves should be looking at that stat and asking “What can we do different in our 5 day preparations to counter that statistic?” Covering your eyes and yelling “no excuses” is not the answer.

I read an article today on the roar that was an analysis of the 2019 draw. They were saying that for teams backing up from 5 day turn arounds won about 45% of the time. It was teams with 5 day turn arounds and significant travel that lost 90% of the time.

Really it should be possible to make a draw that eliminates the need for this at all.

We only have one more this season, against the warriors in NZ which stacks the odds against us for that but there will be many other factors at play by the time that rolls around.

It’s possible, but not for the NRL as they wish to favour Sydney clubs and match them as much as possible against each other.