We had Addin and co getting us into the opposition 20 and even with SJ would make poor attacking plays.
In round one this year we couldn't make metres against a bully pack of Raiders.
In round two we ascended in the forward battle and our mid tier halves pulled their water pistol triggers and we won.
I think this is relevant to your post
I will give you multiple choice of responses and you can pick the one that works for you as I can go in different directions in response to this:
a) I think if I triangulate your response, which is definitely relevant to my post, with the points I raised, then where we land is that Meters per set is very important. But meters per set will go to waste if you can't convert your opportunities in the red zone like we couldn't last year. No one knows for sure if SJ was playing hurt or if simply Father Time caught up with him but he was definitely completely ineffective all year except the last game against the Sharks. So while in my post I said running metres are not all that important i probably need to retract that and say they are definitely important while still maintaining my point that Rugby League is a complex game and you need to optomise on at least 5 or 6 KPIs in order to win games with total running metres or meters per set only being one of those KPIS. And the implication of it only being one of those KPIS is that you can win if you other KPIS are high enough to compensate. So trade offs from last year from losing Addin's probably best in the NRL PCMS to gaining JHHs probably best in the NRL middle third defence are very important points to make when assessing what we have lost and gained from a running metres perspective from last year.
b) OR a second answer I can give which is completely different is to say let's consider the 2024 Indigenous vs Maori All Stars match. Now I don't have the stats in front of me but I watched the game closely and the team lists back up my points; so for arguments sake let's go with my summary as follows:
The Maori had bar far and away the best forwards and during the match easily rumbled up to the 60 or even 65 mark on their sets. While the Indigenous had by far and away the best backs.
I knew this going into the match so I wanted to know who would win as there would be valuable rugby league lessons to learn. What happens when you match up team A with gun forwards vs Team B with gun backs and both are relatively weak in the other area.
The result was Indigenous won. They got less chances yet converted those few that came, but importantly they also scored some long range tries that came despite some rather average carries by their forwards in the same set.
Lesson I personally got from is that the KPI of red zone conversion rate is more important than the KPI of forwards running metres or meters per set.
A team of good backs will beat a team of good forwards despite the old adage that footy games are won up front. Although of course this is a long bow to draw from just one data set being one game notwithstanding that I have seen this play out obviously with the warriors last year with a budget back line and multiple $800K forwards.
Point B would back up my assertion that our loss of running metres this year is not all that important to our chances of winning. However I caveat that by saying exactly how much running metres we have given up is very important and had we not upgraded of Clark at lock instead of Jazz then maybe the degrees of the trade off change and maybe we are 2 losses and 0 wins right now and maybe this is a different conclusion we are reaching. So it is not a simple black and white rule but also depends on the amount of the trade off and in the case of the indigenous just how much worse were their forwards and while they were not as good as the Maori they weren't terrible. Which was important to the indigenous win.
c) Just to give you a third response reply to pick from is to say thank you for your rebuttal. I liked your points and thought they were very germane.
