General Attack Or Defence?

[wizards rage]

Or this all happens because the team you are playing is poor with the ball.

You could argue either way for ever, if you are great at attack the other team never gets the ball vs Defense never lets them keep it. We would need some advanced analytics beyond points for and against here.

A purely defensive team like the Sharks a few years ago, were painful to watch as they ground out wins, but they won.

I would argue the Warriors have been attack focused for the majority of our 25 years and while it’s been fun we have not reached our potential.

More important is probably the fundamentals that underpin both - fitness; desire; competitiveness; footy brains; leadership in key positions, etc so you can have a strong attack and defence at the same time.

 

[Mr Brownstone]

A purely defensive team like the Sharks a few years ago, were painful to watch as they ground out wins, but they won.

I would argue the Warriors have been attack focused for the majority of our 25 years and while it’s been fun we have not reached our potential.

More important is probably the fundamentals that underpin both - fitness; desire; competitiveness; footy brains; leadership in key positions, etc so you can have a strong attack and defence at the same time.

Sharks still had the 3rd best attack (a single try from being 2nd) and also 3rd best defence that year so clearly they weren't purely defensive.

 

[jonno]

The big problem with being an attack based team is when you keep throwing dodgy passes and offloads that hand over possession. Unforced errors are a killer at NRL level.

Sometimes it seems like all a player at the Warriors needs to know before throwing an offload is whether or not his arm is free. How much opposition traffic there is waiting for the offload doesn't come into it.

Our attack needs serious work on picking the right moments, because every time your offense turns the ball over that's just more defense you have to put in. And if our team isn't feeling like defending on that day, we lose the crowd and it's game over.

We need to be able to grind out a game if that's all the opposition will allow. They have a say in how the game is played just as much as we do after all.

 

[Dunedin warrior]

West Tigers in 2005 were 2nd in points scored and 10th in points conceded. It is possible to win the with an attack focused team. Similarly the dragons had the best defence but only the 8th best attack in 2010.

Most of the time though teams will tend to be good on both sides of the ball. Good defence boosts confidence on attack and vice versa.

More important is to dominate the ruck area on both attack and defence. That’s what the storms success has been based on.

 

[wizards rage]

Sharks still had the 3rd best attack (a single try from being 2nd) and also 3rd best defence that year so clearly they weren't purely defensive.

Exactly... defence isn’t everything but it sets the platform. Do you agree they ground the opposition down with defence first, with a forwards dominated game plan and they played off the back of that with attack?

 

[wizards rage]

Nah I am more thinking the Broncos and Raiders of the late 80s, early 90s vs the Norths and St Georges of the same era. Or how Parramatta went from nowhere on the back of the Hayne train to the Grand Final. I don't think he reinvented their defense during that amazing run.

Broncos and raiders were stacked teams. They would dominate no matter what the game plan as they were a level above the rest of the comp.

The Eels finished the regular season 8th that year... I don’t consider a phenomenal run an indicator of a long term successful strategy and clearly it was not something they could replicate and build a club around

 

[Mr Brownstone]

Exactly... defence isn’t everything but it sets the platform. Do you agree they ground the opposition down with defence first, with a forwards dominated game plan and they played off the back of that with attack?

Yeah possibly however I honestly can't recalll whether that was the case. I still maintain that you need both - strong attack can be used to tire the opposition as well.

Btw, does anyone else think this thread is a bit like the great debate between shampoo and conditioner in Billy Madison?

 

[jonno]

Yeah possibly however I honestly can't recalll whether that was the case. I still maintain that you need both - strong attack can be used to tire the opposition as well.

Btw, does anyone else think this thread is a bit like the great debate between shampoo and conditioner in Billy Madison?

Clearly conditioner doesn't remove the dirt from your hair, so shampoo is far more important. Without that you're just making the dirt shinny...

 

[Stone]

My philosophy is that the best form of offense is a strong defense & that a strong defense is the foundation which everything else can be built upon

Might be old skool but it still works more often than not

 

[wizards rage]

Clearly conditioner doesn't remove the dirt from your hair, so shampoo is far more important. Without that you're just making the dirt shinny...

They are both just marketing hype aimed at females... nothing wrong with a good rub with soap

 

[Mr Bob]

Btw, does anyone else think this thread is a bit like the great debate between shampoo and conditioner in Billy Madison?

You can buy two in one these days.

Problem solved.

 

[Mr Brownstone]

Clearly conditioner doesn't remove the dirt from your hair, so shampoo is far more important. Without that you're just making the dirt shinny...

So to take this a step further, we could liken defence to shampoo and attack to conditioner?

 

[Christofolos]

Tell that to Manly against Souths on the weekend. Scored a try directly from a tackle that cut a guy in half and dislodged the ball.

As I previously said, defence forces turnovers, limits the oppositions opportunities and provides field position.

If you dominate field position, possession, and have more opportunities than the opposition, you're going to win far more often than you lose.

Unless you don’t have any idea of what to do with the ball when you turn it over with good defence, which is kinda where this whole thing started, my initial comments were that we shouldn’t focus solely on defence, that you also need to pay attention with what you do ball in hand. I never advocated disregarding defence, especially in an era where most NRL teams have such solid defences. This has morphed into a different discussion, which I like. All I am saying is that a sound defence does you little good if you don’t have the ability to score points as well, so we should be focused on both aspects. My feeling is that in the past, and possibly still although this may be currently changing, we have been super focused for the main part on defence, and not enough on attack.
One of the Aussie commentators early last season came up with a stat, probably Vossy, that when the Warriors haves scored 23 points or more they have won 95% of their games. I do not think they did this solely because they managed to score 23+ in these games, also because they restricted opponents to 22- in the same games, therefore a good balance of attack and defence.
However, keep this discussion going until team lists come out as it is interesting hearing everybody’s views, in a coupla hours we can go back to moaning about SK because Lisone is back on the run on team, or because Kata hasn’t been dropped lol

 

[matiunz]

A little from column A and a little from Column B
Can’t win a game by not scoring points and can’t win a game by conceding too many.
Generally focus does seem to go on attack where it equally needs to be on defence

 

[jonno]

Unless you don’t have any idea of what to do with the ball when you turn it over with good defence, which is kinda where this whole thing started, my initial comments were that we shouldn’t focus solely on defence, that you also need to pay attention with what you do ball in hand. I never advocated disregarding defence, especially in an era where most NRL teams have such solid defences. This has morphed into a different discussion, which I like. All I am saying is that a sound defence does you little good if you don’t have the ability to score points as well, so we should be focused on both aspects. My feeling is that in the past, and possibly still although this may be currently changing, we have been super focused for the main part on defence, and not enough on attack.
One of the Aussie commentators early last season came up with a stat, probably Vossy, that when the Warriors haves scored 23 points or more they have won 95% of their games. I do not think they did this solely because they managed to score 23+ in these games, also because they restricted opponents to 22- in the same games, therefore a good balance of attack and defence.
However, keep this discussion going until team lists come out as it is interesting hearing everybody’s views, in a coupla hours we can go back to moaning about SK because Lisone is back on the run on team, or because Kata hasn’t been dropped lol

It's interesting that stat you post from Vossy about scoring 24 points and winning 95%.

This indicates to me that when they show up to play they do score points, and the also defend well.

So I'm now thinking this team needs to stop debating whether attack is better, or defense is better, and just fucken show up on game day ready for action. Enough of the BS already.

 

[gREVUS]

Clearies grand final warriors had some stunning defensive efforts .
Playing against the opposition an at times the refs as well
But I remember watching them defend their line for repeated sets with ease
These efforts caused the opposition to panic or get frustrated .You could watch it happen
We could also keep the opposition in their own half
So we had offensive D as opposed to now where our D is just offensive to us fans

yes, but they also hurt the opposition in defence. That took effort, and thats the thing that they seem to come and go on.

 

[gREVUS]

Sharks still had the 3rd best attack (a single try from being 2nd) and also 3rd best defence that year so clearly they weren't purely defensive.

But did they have the 3rd best defence because of their dominance with defence?

I propose that you can stack a team with an Shaun Johnson and an Roger Tuivasa-Sheck and still have middling success. I say this because thats exactly what happened 2017. Both are good to excellent defenders and phenomenal attackers. But the rest of the team was not at their level. 2018 they worked on defence and the team improved in attack as well. Again this year defensive effort has slipped and the warriors attack has become meaningless.

training should be 70 percent defence and 30 percent attack. IMO

 

[Gizzyfan]

We have a skewed view of what good defence and attack is. Warrior fans tend to con entrate on the efforts of individual players both sides of the ball.

League and Union are true team games. Indiiduals who do not fit in in with team structures are soon targeted. Too often we have seen players praised for a good run or tackle then not sighted for ages. Same as Attack where players sat back and waited for players like Shaun Johnson and Vatuvei to spark things.

These players are capable, however imo there are players who are mentally weak and drop out of the structure. This is where the no dickhead policy comes from.

It is getting better but still a ways to go.

 

[jonno]

You need a good balance across your squad. With the salary cap it makes it very difficult to stack a team like the Kangroos or the AB's are stacked. So you need to make sure the players you have are complementing each other, and are creating opportunities for the game breakers on attack. Every time Roger Tuivasa-Sheck finds himself in space there needs to be a support runner with a clear goal line in front of him. That kind of thing.

Defense is more about attitude and communication. Any player can be a great defender if they put in the effort. But it seems like all our guys are saving their energy for attack, so they can add to their highlights reels and bump up their contract rates. That's a losing strategy for the team, but can be very profitable for an individual.

It was interesting watching Dugan playing on through all kinds of pain in what was ultimately a loss for the sharks this weekend. Shaun Johnson must have been amazed at that level of commitment, while he sat in the stands with a minor strain.

I've certainly never seen a Warriors player with that level of commitment to the team while Shaun Johnson was with us. We've got guys like Kata faking eye injuries while the opposition are scoring points against us. He needs to give himself and uppercut, while the club gives him a pay cut.

 

[gREVUS]

We have a skewed view of what good defence and attack is. Warrior fans tend to con entrate on the efforts of individual players both sides of the ball.

League and Union are true team games. Indiiduals who do not fit in in with team structures are soon targeted. Too often we have seen players praised for a good run or tackle then not sighted for ages. Same as Attack where players sat back and waited for players like Shaun Johnson and Vatuvei to spark things.

These players are capable, however imo there are players who are mentally weak and drop out of the structure. This is where the no dickhead policy comes from.

It is getting better but still a ways to go.

things have improved, as per last year. But as per games 2 and 3 this year they still have the wobbles occasionally and things need more work