Chooks attack needs a lot of improvement against good defensive sides. The forwards lacked punch and they missed Lindsay Collins big time. And the halves were so predictable until the last 10 minutes of desperation footy. I understand that the Chooks thought their big outside backs might have an edge over the Panthers smaller men. But Walker and Keary didn’t take on the line themselves and so the Panthers just held off and double teamed Manu and Sua’ali’i. And where were the offloads? The Eels and Broncs (last year) showed at least you can stretch the Panthers with second (and third) phase play. Poor coaching by Robinson to think you can beat Panthers at their own game.

Controversies aside, one crucial component Ciraldo has to take responsibility for is continuing to ignore the fact that Drew Hutchinson is NOT a halfback. His passing is not NRL standard, he doesn’t set players up and when he runs he is oh so slow. Hutchinson is a good gutsy NRL-standard player and it’s not his fault his coach has him in the most important position in a rugby league team. The Dogs’ attack doesn’t ask much of defending teams and so doesn’t drain much energy and this shows at the back end of games when the Dogs are spent and concede late points. I would suggest a decent halfback goes a long way of fixing the Dogs attack and subsequently less energy spent in defence.

Totally agree that, based on last night’s showing, the Dogs don’t have a halfback to take them to the 8. Both Hutchison and Sexton looked a level below NRL standard at #7. Burton runs and has a big boot. Not convinced he’s a 5/8 either and certainly not with mediocre halfbacks inside him. Reed Mahoney is a defensive machine, but not overly creative at 9. Taafe had a mixed night (at best). The Dogs recruitment / re-build looks woeful. Maybe there is some talent coming through the lower ranks, but serious questions for Ciraldo and Gould to answer in 2024.

He can play on an edge and the Broncos are very short on options there.

A good coach adapts the style of play to accommodate for waxing and waning abilities in the squad. Shaun Johnson is no longer the mercurial player he once was, but has developed (under Webster’s tutelage) as a brilliant organising half. These sorts of analyses seem to assume players, coaches, teams are locked into a style and cannot evolve. So, yes, Reynolds is getting older and slower, I don’t think that will be a revelation to his coach. Jock Madden may step up to organise and give more responsibility to Mam. The Broncs forward pack will certainly get them down field, and Kevvie was pretty good at converting position into points in his playing days.

“On the bench, both Brendan Piakura and Xavier Willison have long threatened to be the next big thing, but neither have completely convinced.”

They’re both 21 years old. Not too many middle forwards are established as the “next big thing” by 21 (Payne Haas excepted).

I’d like to see Nicho Hynes win a few tough, tight games for the Sharks as the dominant half, before giving him the Roos jumper. Brilliant attacking runner, and when the Sharks are playing the bottom 8 sides he’s great (and deserving Dally M winner). But, when playing top 8 sides the Sharks crumble and Hynes looks bereft of ideas. Then again if he’s playing outside Cleary, it might work.

One way to address the chicken-egg questions is ask: “Have players improved under this coach?”. I would say definitely, yes. Let’s start Reynolds. Many commentators say ARey is a better player now than when he won a premiership at Souths. Jordon Riki has gone to another level this year. Staggs and Farnworth have both improved. Carrigan and Haas have added new dimensions to their games, especially ball playing. Billy Walters is one of the most improved and only after Kevvie told him it’s hooker or reserve grade. Mam has got better. Flegler is playing the best he ever has. So, imo, most players have improved under K Walters.

Plus Walters came in and changed the roster. He got rid of over-paid players brought in by Seibold and he recruited ARey.

I always thought Kevvie would be a good coach. He was not an overly gifted player so had to use his nous to succeed. Instinctive players like Wally Lewis make poor coaches because they never had to analyse why they did things that worked. Walters had to think hard to make up for his lack of natural ability.

Yes, Kevvie definitely can coach.

Fellow Roarers can someone please explain why we have lawyers at a sports tribunal? Why are many thousands of dollars wasted on SCs, barristers etc when the jury are ex-players and refs who can see the evidence for themselves? Plus the NRL tribunal has adopted the adversarial legal system (Aus, UK, USA) where it seem to me the defence and prosecution make outrageous claims to maximise / minimise the punishment? In the end it’s a game with arbitrary rules, of the game’s own making, and the decision is made by ex-players. So, (although I think he’s guilty) I agree with Wighton’s comment on “How many games have you played?”.

Am I missing a bigger picture here?

When the criterium is “making finals” then, it seems to me the deciding factor is how well the front office operates. The Panthers, Storm & Chooks all seem to have excellent admin. The re-emergence of the Broncos has coincided with the arrival of Dave Donaghy (he of Storm pedigree). The Warriors are just happy to be home and with their families again. Conversely, Manly’s front office post-Fulton has been a soap opera, similarly the Dogs. And the West Tigers, well, … it’s obvious, and you can add the Dragons to those 4.

So what, could the NRL do? Unlike the salary cap which goes some way of evening out the playing talent, there are no rules / oversight on club administrations. A few NRL CEOs ago, David Smith wanted to introduce NRL licences so that all clubs were run at a decent standard. If you fell below that standard then your licence would go to another franchise (eg North Sydney Bears). It was an attempt to impose some level of professionalism on club admins. Not surprisingly it was not popular amongst club chairs who vetoed the idea. But that’s the problem in a nutshell. It’s not the coach or the playing staff, because they are recruited by the front office. There may be hope for the Dogs if the Gould magic (myth?) can re-build them and if the front office doesn’t get in the way.

But apart from the David Smith idea not really sure what the NRL can do to ensure club admin standards.

On a side topic – are we so short of NRL TV commentators that we have to have a CEO commentate on his own club?!? Or coaches (Shane Flannagan) commentate on his past, current and future club? Or ex-players on their old clubs? (Or Brandy, Fittler, Slater, Smith etc etc)
I’m not blaming them for being biased (indeed I’d worry if they weren’t) but it’s a worry that Ch9 & Fox figure they can lump us with the old boys. As a neutral its annoying, if you’re a fan of the opposition it must be infuriating. Maybe one for colour comments but never rostered onto a game where there is a conflict of interest. It’s bad enough when they commentate through their wallets.

I switched off around the 65 minute mark as, to me, it was a dull game with little happening. Sounds like fun in the last 10 minutes but really little to get excited about either side. Raiders scored 2 tries from goal post rebounds. Fogarty is a good player but could try that another 20 times and not get a result. 2 in 1 night; buy a lottery ticket. Raiders other try from a bomb lottery. Tigers must have come to life against 12 men. Unfortunately, when it was 13 v 13 they showed very little.

They could do worse than offer the job to Mick Potter. The Dogs looked good under him last season (better I would say than under Ciraldo’s guidance).

StGI fans have been blowing bubbles about the wunderkinder for quite some time and while they look exciting and pretty in attack, their defence is simply not NRL standard.

Interesting to consider in this context the comments from Reece Walsh’s coaches, Nathan Brown and Kevvie, who, at every opportunity, said Reece needed to learn how to defend. They never talked up his attacking prowess as the media did that for them, but they realised there’s two elements that need to be mastered in the NRL.

I wonder what StGI coach will have a hard word to the kids about defence, or even, heaven forbid, send them back to NSW cup to learn how to tackle against men, not boys?

Actually what makes those other comps so predictable is no salary cap. The richest clubs simply buy up all the talent (even if the player then plays in reserve grade, at least they’ve removed a possible threat). So, no the NRL draw is not something worth celebrating for its unpredictable nature. Given the closeness of the comp ladder position points differential quite often is crucial. But maybe you only played the Panthers once etc, etc.

Ohh the hypocrisy of Gus! While I agree with his comments it was Gus and his fellow blowhards / crisis merchants who have driven the changes over the years. The refs are damned if they do and, damned if they don’t.

Is there a more ludicrous draw in any world sport than the NRL? I really hate what SoO does to the NRL draw and hence competition. Key players out of teams but only some teams have to play this week while others get a bye (and NZ not really affected at all). This is on top of an uneven draw where your team plays some twice and others once, sometimes you play the same team only a few weeks meeting the first time and other teams not until the end of the season. It really is a schmozzle. Stand alone Origin made much more sense from a fair competition point of view, just doesn’t bring in the $$$$. Wake me when it’s over.

Not according to the match review committee. So no he didn’t.

To support the refs the least the NRL can do is remove the bunker’s discretion to send a player to the bin for 10 minutes. That’s a big call in close games and as Carrigan / Broncos found out last week the bunker was in error. Unless the bunker is 110% SURE it’s a sin binnable offence, leave it up to the officials on the field and let the MRC sort it out objectively in the cold light of the next day. BTW, NAS made a pretty good recovery rather quickly.

Totally agree Tetley! I know I’m a dinosaur but sport is meant to flow, and the stop / start nature these days kills momentum and atmosphere. More often that not I get deflated rather than elated.

A wider point to consider, than this specific incident, is how to reconcile Bunker versus Match Review Committee decisions. Bunker says a player deserves 10 in the bin but MRC committee after the game says nothing to be reported. So a team (in this case Broncos but it happens to every team) is down 12 versus 13 for 10 minutes only to later find the Bunker “made a mistake”. That can be the only interpretation. A 3-man MRC panel says “no case to answer” and the NRL says “Yeah sorry we got that one wrong.” Bunker to ONLY rule on try scoring situations. Let the MRC sort it out objectively the next day!

The NRL prevents anyone working for betting companies to be involved in an NRL team (eg. Laurie Daley). But current coaches and/or administrators (Gould, Shane Flanagan, Billy Slater, Brad Fittler) have commentator’s jobs which can and do influence the game. For example, media crisis merchants drive / influence the agenda at the MRC often swapping sides on a weekly basis (hip-drops, from “very bad” to “what’s he supposed to do? Let go?”) or (“protect the kicker” to “kickers have become koalas”). Retired players and coaches can add great insights into the game but, imo, anyone with a current club (or state) connection should be banned from being a commentator. I mean they’re well paid as it is.

So according to the NRL “..refs have been instructed to look at four indicators – whether a defender is late, high contact to the head or neck, the danger of the contact causing an unacceptable risk of injury and “this issue of vulnerability – that’s where one or both feet are off the ground or a player is off balance”.
The last two criteria are very subjective. What exactly is an “unacceptable risk”? Standing in front of a charging JFH / JWH / Haas? Taking a bomb with someone like Radley zooming in? Facing up to Bellamy after missing a couple of tackles? Same goes for “issue of vulnerability”? What even is that? Being threatened by a rainbow on a jersey? Do issues of vulnerability also apply to the poor fullback or winger who have to take the bomb and then get smashed? They have no protection and no evasive options until defusing the bomb.
As I’ve said previously, the NRL is primarily (only?) concerned about image management. And so, whatever the wind direction, the zeitgeist, the topic, Smith, Voss, Gould, Johns are banging on about, that’s how criteria are selected and enforced.
Some halves these days ONLY have a big kick in their bag of tricks. And they’re a protected species.

Hook might stifle his attacking flair but boy the kid misses a lot of tackles and that ain’t the coaches fault.

I’ve always hated GP. The only hope of having it removed is convincing the betting companies about how much money they could make by including “Draw” as a betting option. Imagine the odds and desperate punters needing to win back big would throw heaps of money at the option. The way to PVLs heart (or whatever pumps the blood around his body) is through the betting $$$.