When you listen to some of the better analysis of what is actually going on in games you realize that a large part of attacking play is setting up the defence into a position you can exploit. Attacking sets are there to maneuver a defender or defenders into poor positions and then exploit them. Yet good players will always recognize spontaneously when the defence is weak - eg. a slow retreating defender, not numbering up right. These are things you are looking to create with structured attack but sometimes a guy just busts a tackle and the defence scrambles badly and you get opportunities occurring - that's when you play what you see rather than carry on with your pre-programmed next play. The big advantage you have when attacking is that (in theory) you know what you are going to do and the defence is unsure. If you play always off the cuff you lose that significant advantage. I don't buy the argument that "if the attack doesn't know what they are going to do then the defence definitely won't". If you attack properly the defence will struggle no matter what. Good plays have options and if you execute based on what you see defenders will not be able to always cover them all.

I had a simple drill I used to coach (Union - but essentially the same objective) , I had two coloured cones, I stood behind the defensive line and if I held up one colour I wanted the attack to keep it tight - short pop passes around the ruck, if I held up another I wanted them to move it wide. I would base it on how the defence was lined up. It was a great way to get the kids to look at what was in front of them.


I remember back when we first started to get Australian players over after the lifting of the international ban. I think it was Grothe who was interviewed and said that he was coached to finish a move from anywhere on the pitch - coached. What we tend to think of as "spontaneous" actually isn't. When someone makes a break the rest of the team have a pattern to expoit it and finish it. Good teams are better at this and the one thing you can say about Australian teams is that if you give them a sniff they are extremely efficient at converting it. And I would say that a big reason for that efficiency is because they have to play against less generous defensive structures.

Looking at the tries conceded our defence is still very much a joke. I don't care how many injuries we have, or who is on the field, some of the feeble efforts (in particular players not even getting into a position to defend) are appalling.

I'd also add that Golding should never have been asked to take the drive on our line that led to Sts try. A heads up play from the acting half would have been a dummy and run for himself, not passing to one of the smallest players in a position where all that would happen is him getting mullered.

This is the most annoying thing for me, the defensive structure is all over the shop and has been since Widnes away. Its been mentioned a lot but the ruck is really terrible and needs fixing up badly.As poor as our attack has been for the most part, if we had been better in this area we wouldn't be down where we are right now imo.

What struck me was that all it took for Sts to break the line was a smaller player to run towards the Leeds defence then stop and start again. The defence looked like it was playing musical statues.

As an aside a friend at work watched the full game yesterday and he was raving about Lilley. Mind you as a Sharks fan for the past few years he has been watching Jeff Robson at 7.

Its selfish defending, or at least self-preserving defending that is costing us
Players are pushing off far too early and asking far too much of their inside man, often overcommitting to an outside threat
Worrying thing is its players who are usually quite reliable in defence, there has been a lot of time this season when I have been shouting 'where is he going!' in Ablets direction, who seams to think his inside defenders are superhuman