Coaching issues

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Finchy
Jason Croker
Posts: 4892
Joined: March 30, 2008, 9:59 pm
Favourite Player: Ata Mariota

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Finchy »

Northern Raider wrote: May 12, 2021, 1:12 pm
BJ wrote: May 12, 2021, 1:03 pm
Botman wrote:
bonehead wrote: May 12, 2021, 8:29 am
Botman wrote:
Nope. Can’t think of anything that altered the outcome of that game save for our performance.
agreed, we bombed our moment to win the match whilst the Roosters executed their moment.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Correct. We scored 1 try in the 80 minute game, which included a period where we had a 12 on 13 advantage and still couldnt crack them. This idea that had we been given 6 more tackles, suddenly the flood gates open and we win that game is the stuff of fantasy.

There is nothing external stopping the Raiders from being a successful football team and winning premierships.
Pigman you say we wouldn’t have scored in the grand final with the 6 more tackles. If the ref doesn’t make that call we score on that very play. I had a great angle live in the grandstand and we had them totally shot on the right with multiple scoring options. Simple draw and pass.
We still could have blown it. :lol:

Realistically though its a pointless debate because it's arguing about what would have happened if something happened that didn't happen. What we do know is the opportunity was taken away from the Raiders and given to the Roosters who subsequently scored. The decision may not have altered the outcome but it did influence it.
We would have blown it. From memory we had them shot out wide earlier when they played short to Papa. We got lucky that Cronk hit Papa a fraction of a second before he went to catch the ball and got sin binned. But we should have scored a try that play. It was like 6 on 1 or something ridiculous, and we took the crash ball option with the only defender in sight standing right in front of him.
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.
User avatar
Luffto
Sam Backo
Posts: 188
Joined: August 12, 2016, 2:45 pm
Favourite Player: Pigman

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Luffto »

Probably would have blown it, but we didn't see it. Anyone saying that decision didn't influence the end result is delusional, anyone saying that decision cost us the GF is also delusional.

Hate to say it because he's a ****, but 'Botman' is spot on in here. Clubs will be successful if they have the right culture. They'll always be able to attract better players - just as we've been able to do last couple of years. Storm and Roosters will have their periods where they go to ****, we don't know when, but it will happen.
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by BJ »

I often think Botman has some good footy insight, but saying Wighton was taking the tackle whether or not the ref made the 6 again call is delusional.

The play changed on the refs call and Wighton decided to take the tackle instead. If it wasn’t 6 again, it was either going to be passed out to the right (most likely) or possibly a grubber with Tedesco lying on the ground and the Roosters defence in disarray across the park and mostly positioned on our left.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41997
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Botman »

BJ wrote: May 12, 2021, 3:11 pm I often think Botman has some good footy insight, but saying Wighton was taking the tackle whether or not the ref made the 6 again call is delusional.

The play changed on the refs call and Wighton decided to take the tackle instead. If it wasn’t 6 again, it was either going to be passed out to the right (most likely) or possibly a grubber with Tedesco lying on the ground and the Roosters defence in disarray across the park and mostly positioned on our left.
1) Tedesco isnt laying on the ground. he was up on his feet a split second after the spill, he was right in front of the play, following the football when Emre Guler offload to Wighton.
2) Wighton takes the offload, i think it's Keary comes up hard shut down the ability to pass without risking an incept and Cronk makes the tackle.
3) Even if Jack passes, and it gets past Keary, the Roosters have 3 defenders, with Cronk who no longer needs to make a tackle, Radley who can now turn and pursue and Tedesco coming across in cover, against Tapine, JB, BJ an Rapana. I mean maybe one of our guys breaks a tackle and scores, but they hadnt done all game to that point and this is a certainly walk in by any means
4) **** you for making me watch that **** highlights package again. You can get absolutely and totally **** for that. :P :lol:

You want to talk delusional? Pretending thats a walk in try if Jack passes the ball. That's delusional.
User avatar
afgtnk
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10712
Joined: April 7, 2007, 1:45 am
Favourite Player: Crotic

Re: Coaching issues

Post by afgtnk »

Swap Sezer for George and we probably get over the line.

Other than that, we did absolutely everything we could in that game and it wasn't enough. This 6 again excuse **** is pure fan fiction.
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by BJ »

Botman wrote:
BJ wrote: May 12, 2021, 3:11 pm I often think Botman has some good footy insight, but saying Wighton was taking the tackle whether or not the ref made the 6 again call is delusional.

The play changed on the refs call and Wighton decided to take the tackle instead. If it wasn’t 6 again, it was either going to be passed out to the right (most likely) or possibly a grubber with Tedesco lying on the ground and the Roosters defence in disarray across the park and mostly positioned on our left.
1) Tedesco isnt laying on the ground. he was up on his feet a split second after the spill, he was right in front of the play, following the football when Emre Guler offload to Wighton.
2) Wighton takes the offload, i think it's Keary comes up hard shut down the ability to pass without risking an incept and Cronk makes the tackle.
3) Even if Jack passes, and it gets past Keary, the Roosters have 3 defenders, with Cronk who no longer needs to make a tackle, Radley who can now turn and pursue and Tedesco coming across in cover, against Tapine, JB, BJ an Rapana. I mean maybe one of our guys breaks a tackle and scores, but they hadnt done all game to that point and this is a certainly walk in by any means
4) **** you for making me watch that **** highlights package again. You can get absolutely and totally **** for that. :P :lol:

You want to talk delusional? Pretending thats a walk in try if Jack passes the ball. That's delusional.
I called you delusional for saying it didn’t change Wighton’s decision making. Don’t go all Strawman on us.

But as for the video, I can tell you the TV coverage of that play from Channel 9 gives no insight into that particular live play from a good position high up in the stand from the opposite side to the camera. That camera angle shortened the depth of field and it looks like players are much closer than they actually are. Myself and those around me could see what suddenly opened up (as you often can at the ground and not on TV). I’m sure you’ve seen a try opportunity open up live at the game, which people don’t see on the TV coverage.

Amongst a group of 8, including Roosters fans, We were shocked at what that play looked like in the replay that night. It all happens around just 15m out and to the left of the posts at Stadium Australia which is a very very wide ground, thus making Tedesco for example have to cover about 40m to stop a try or kick in the right corner. Easier opportunity than the Bateman winning try a few weeks earlier.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41997
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Botman »

Tedesco was following the play the whole time, he covers 40-50-100 metres on his goal line every week. All fullbacks do. Keeping up with the play was never going to be a problem for him, he had already recovered from the kick and was in front of the play by the time Guler got the football.

I was on that side of the field at the other end of the field, mid way up. I had a great view of it.
I never even considered that play to a try scoring opportunity had Jack passed until you mentioned it. That's why i went back to look at it, and the replay confirmed my thoughts.
IMO it was not what you think it was. Not even close. If that ball goes left past Wighton to Tapine or JB... there was A LOT of work to be done if a try was going to be scored.
User avatar
hobbsy
Glenn Lazarus
Posts: 331
Joined: October 16, 2007, 10:38 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by hobbsy »

This season is tough enough without having to re live the GF loss boys...
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41997
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Botman »

hobbsy wrote: May 12, 2021, 5:09 pm This season is tough enough without having to re live the GF loss boys...
Amen to that :roflmao
It’s the first time I’ve watched the highlights since I think the day after

Never again
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by BJ »

Botman wrote:Tedesco was following the play the whole time, he covers 40-50-100 metres on his goal line every week. All fullbacks do. Keeping up with the play was never going to be a problem for him, he had already recovered from the kick and was in front of the play by the time Guler got the football.

I was on that side of the field at the other end of the field, mid way up. I had a great view of it.
I never even considered that play to a try scoring opportunity had Jack passed until you mentioned it. That's why i went back to look at it, and the replay confirmed my thoughts.
IMO it was not what you think it was. Not even close. If that ball goes left past Wighton to Tapine or JB... there was A LOT of work to be done if a try was going to be scored.
You called one of our tries offside live at the ground a few seasons ago and replays screenshots posted on the GH proved you wrong. I’m not putting any faith in what you saw live.

Roosters fans around us thought we’d butchered a certain try.
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by BJ »

Pigman thinks we gladly take the tackle on the 6th whether the ref calls 6 again or not.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41997
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Botman »

Sorry when did I say that?
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by BJ »

Botman wrote:
BJ wrote: May 12, 2021, 1:03 pm Pigman you say we wouldn’t have scored in the grand final with the 6 more tackles. If the ref doesn’t make that call we score on that very play. I had a great angle live in the grandstand and we had them totally shot on the right with multiple scoring options. Simple draw and pass.
Jack Wighton took a tackle... hard to score a try on the very play that we took a tackle on :lol:
Here’s your quote above to my original comment.
Raiders666
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5873
Joined: June 9, 2013, 11:25 am
Favourite Player: Ken Nagas

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Raiders666 »

Guys you know Pigman is never wrong...right?
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by BJ »

Pig. If I don’t respond further just note I’m about to be out of contact until tomorrow. Not ignoring you.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41997
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Botman »

Re the post above
All that quote said is he took the tackle and we didn’t score
I haven’t made a single comment in this thread that suggests I think Jack would take the tackle and surrender possession if he thought it was the last tackle
He’s simply jack, but even he isn’t that simple
BJ wrote: May 12, 2021, 5:19 pm Pigman thinks we gladly take the tackle on the 6th whether the ref calls 6 again or not.
Probably for the best
I really don’t want to keep arguing about the most gut wrenching day in my life as a sports fan.

I’m not discounting that a try might have been scored had Wighton gotten the ball out wide
That’s Tapine, JB, Beej and Rapana out there with a bit of space, all of which were incredible players and capable of doing something special in space and creating a try.

But that’s what it would have been imo, someone doing something special, there was no walk in, draw and pass try to scored on that play imo. If you think there was, that’s ok but I’ve not heard anyone else push that and it’s not supported by any replay. So I’ll just agree to disagree
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Coaching issues

Post by gangrenous »

The problem in this discussion is that everyone in the “no excuses” camp is an absolutist where either everything is in your control and there are no external influences (hint: this is a **** stupid take) OR you’re 100% certain that Raiders were robbed and definitely would have won had events played out the other way (an overblown take, but at least you can try and argue your angle).

Just no.

If you want to hold the view that you can only worry about what you can control, and focus on that, then that’s a perfectly reasonable take. Also the one you’d hope the team chooses to take (it matters what they do, not us). However, that is not incompatible with acknowledging that there were (and commonly are) factors outside of your control that influence the outcome of games.

In the GF the 6 again and trainergate absolutely had influence on how the game played out - particularly given the Roosters only two tries came off the back of both. We’ll be arguing forever about whether that influence changes the outcome. That is opinion. To say they had no influence is nonsense, just pure Bull which Botman shouldn’t be trying to sell as high and mighty rational independent thought. Sky is green ****.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41997
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Botman »

gangrenous wrote: May 12, 2021, 8:36 pm We’ll be arguing forever about whether that influence changes the outcome. That is opinion. To say they had no influence is nonsense, just pure Bull which Botman shouldn’t be trying to sell as high and mighty rational independent thought. Sky is green ****.
LOL
i literally said exactly that
Botman wrote: May 12, 2021, 7:02 am Nope. Can’t think of anything that altered the outcome of that game save for our performance.
It didnt alter the outcome. Never said it didnt impact the game.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by gangrenous »

You can’t say that definitively just as I can’t definitively say we would have won.
User avatar
afgtnk
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10712
Joined: April 7, 2007, 1:45 am
Favourite Player: Crotic

Re: Coaching issues

Post by afgtnk »

The 'no excuses' camp accepts that external forces, i.e. things like refereeing mistakes, and 'bad luck' are a natural part of the game, which a good enough team should and probably does overcome by focusing on being the absolute best they can in the facets of the game they control.

The other camp doesn't do this, and seeks to place the highest concentration of attention and blame for failures on these external forces, instead of looking inward at what the team is doing.

That's the difference.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41997
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Botman »

gangrenous wrote: May 12, 2021, 9:05 pm You can’t say that definitively just as I can’t definitively say we would have won.
No. It is opinion, as you yourself said.
But your misrepresnting my views to say i dont accept it impacted the game, everything impacts the game.
My view is it did not impact the result. I stand by that. I dont understand the logic behind people dont hold that opinion, but it's their opinion. They're entitled to have it, express it, and im entitled to challenge it, as they are mine.
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by gerg »

As if this season isn't depressing enough. Let's argue over the GF debacle again, to really lift the spirits.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by greeneyed »

gergreg wrote: May 12, 2021, 9:41 pm As if this season isn't depressing enough. Let's argue over the GF debacle again, to really lift the spirits.
Why are we arguing again? Everyone knows we were ripped off by the officiating.
Image
User avatar
GreenMachine
Jason Croker
Posts: 4264
Joined: April 13, 2005, 2:22 pm
Favourite Player: Laurie Daley

Re: Coaching issues

Post by GreenMachine »

gangrenous wrote: May 12, 2021, 8:36 pm The problem in this discussion is that everyone in the “no excuses” camp is an absolutist where either everything is in your control and there are no external influences (hint: this is a **** stupid take) OR you’re 100% certain that Raiders were robbed and definitely would have won had events played out the other way (an overblown take, but at least you can try and argue your angle).

Just no.

If you want to hold the view that you can only worry about what you can control, and focus on that, then that’s a perfectly reasonable take. Also the one you’d hope the team chooses to take (it matters what they do, not us). However, that is not incompatible with acknowledging that there were (and commonly are) factors outside of your control that influence the outcome of games.

In the GF the 6 again and trainergate absolutely had influence on how the game played out - particularly given the Roosters only two tries came off the back of both. We’ll be arguing forever about whether that influence changes the outcome. That is opinion. To say they had no influence is nonsense, just pure Bull which Botman shouldn’t be trying to sell as high and mighty rational independent thought. Sky is green ****.
Finally, the most rational post about the whole issue.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Coaching issues

Post by The Nickman »

greeneyed wrote:
gergreg wrote: May 12, 2021, 9:41 pm As if this season isn't depressing enough. Let's argue over the GF debacle again, to really lift the spirits.
Why are we arguing again? Everyone knows we were ripped off by the officiating.
Your first day here?

Meet Botman and gangrenous
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by gangrenous »

Welcome greeneyed. Me and that **** Botman will be your guides through the magical land that is the forum.

Here is your phrase cheat sheet covering IIYWFAMMS to the latest Stick Solid. Your list of user rivalries (you should choose one soon). A list of sides to choose from (poso v nego, ref apologist v ref lynch mob, Rick vs anti-Rick). If you see Question try not to make eye contact and just keep scrolling.

Ok you’re good to hit the floor.
User avatar
Rickmando
John Ferguson
Posts: 2663
Joined: May 22, 2017, 3:41 pm
Favourite Player: Ricky Stuart

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Rickmando »

gangrenous wrote: May 14, 2021, 8:50 pm Welcome greeneyed. Me and that **** Botman will be your guides through the magical land that is the forum.

Here is your phrase cheat sheet covering IIYWFAMMS to the latest Stick Solid. Your list of user rivalries (you should choose one soon). A list of sides to choose from (poso v nego, ref apologist v ref lynch mob, Rick vs anti-Rick). If you see Question try not to make eye contact and just keep scrolling.

Ok you’re good to hit the floor.
Summed it up eloquently Gangers.

I’d like to identify as nego/ref apologist/anti-Rick. That’s the easy part - much easier than working out how to define my gender and sexuality in modern-day 2021
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Coaching issues

Post by gangrenous »



I’d say I’m a
Nego/ref lynch mob/Rick supporter

So at least we share one side together! There must be a few other GreenHouse dichotomies we could add that help define our forum identities. Obviously a few along the lines of players - Croker is a club legend who needs to be highest NRL point scorer and forever our captain vs Croker is the worst centre to lace a boot and should have been dropped 7 years ago being the most obvious.

Oh and I forgot clique vs non-clique.

So I’m up to:
Nego/ref lynch mob/Rick supporter/Pro-Crokes/Non-clique
User avatar
FuiFui BradBrad
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8651
Joined: May 3, 2008, 10:23 pm
Favourite Player: Phil Graham
Location: Marsden Park

Re: Coaching issues

Post by FuiFui BradBrad »

I’m team Q. Where he goes, I blindly follow
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.

Nickman's love of NSW
  • NSW has done a superb job - 18/12/2020
  • NSW has been world-class with their approach to date, that's a fact. - 04/02/2021
User avatar
Rickmando
John Ferguson
Posts: 2663
Joined: May 22, 2017, 3:41 pm
Favourite Player: Ricky Stuart

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Rickmando »

Even Rick’s biggest advocates wouldn’t be able to point out the effects his “coaching” is having on this team, after a full pre season and 10 rounds of games.

Where are ANY signs of a team that looks like it has any idea what to do on a saturday afternoon against one of the worst NRL sides of the modern era??

Does he just shout “bleed green” repeatedly with a megaphone all week?
LastRaider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2383
Joined: March 31, 2018, 9:30 pm

Re: Coaching issues

Post by LastRaider »

Please change this thread to sack ricky
User avatar
Rickmando
John Ferguson
Posts: 2663
Joined: May 22, 2017, 3:41 pm
Favourite Player: Ricky Stuart

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Rickmando »

LastRaider wrote: May 15, 2021, 4:21 pm Please change this thread to sack ricky
Yes. Will also accept “Ricky Stuart is an absolute myth”
User avatar
Ultima
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12348
Joined: January 18, 2005, 9:46 pm
Favourite Player: Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Ultima »

Sack Stuart already....

He basically ruined another kid today (destroying his confidence), bringing him on with ten to go when we are twenty behind, the rest of the team is already clocked out, and we basically never had the ball... How many players are we going to let him ruin before we sack him and get someone who can get a performance out of them? It can't just be that every player has been that sub par, even the ones who went on to be better at other clubs... ONE WIN AT HOME... The last TEN games we have lost the second half 40 points to ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY NINE (169).... Absolutely pathetic...
User avatar
Ultima
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12348
Joined: January 18, 2005, 9:46 pm
Favourite Player: Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Ultima »

Rickmando wrote: May 15, 2021, 4:51 pm
LastRaider wrote: May 15, 2021, 4:21 pm Please change this thread to sack ricky
Yes. Will also accept “Ricky Stuart is an absolute myth”
Every time I do the mods change it back. They deleted the original Sack Stuart thread "by accident" so I guess we are keeping it as "coaching issues".
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41997
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Coaching issues

Post by Botman »

I think im non binary poso/nego/ref apologist/pronoun Rick is/was
Post Reply