the matt king and kevin penny partnership is just not working for me. is it the positioning of penny or the greed or lack of trust of matt king on attack. rather than use his wing man king regularly cuts inside and fails to make a break as in the first half against saints. why does he not use his wing man?

defensively they consistently don't match up to other pairings in super league either.

is there anyone with any real rugby league pedigree i.e. former player or coach who can shed any light on this incredibly frustrating situation?

York 79

Should i merge this with the kevin penny thread, or one of the matt king threads,

decisions decisions

Just about to start a similar thread on this.

In general, and Sculthorpe picked up on this, but I'm not just plagurising his views, as it's obvious to most on here, too, it is the fringe defence that is our weakest area.

Looking at Saints' six tries, some seemed very soft indeed. Gilmour's first, for example, when he could've scored it in his Sunday best, was a sickener. He waltzed round PJ, he quite literally may aswell have not been there.
Hicks' one-on-one defence IMO is no better than Penny's. A number of times last season, he was turned inside out by an opposite winger or centre. I felt he could've done better for Armstrong's try, though by that time in the match, I'm sure his legs would've been a bit like Jelly to be fair.
King and Penny's defensive frailities have been highlighted on other threads and I'm sure we don't need to go over it again.
What really made me scratch my head was on the 70th minute, Penny was taken off and replaced by Johnson, which struck me as a negative move.
It isn't like football, where you can keep a pacy striker on the bench 'til the last ten minutes then bring him on to win you the game, but I would've thought that with nothing to lose, a bit of a Kick and Chase for Penny in the last ten minutes would've been a good option. Certainly better than having a general lack of pace down that wing. In fact, it could be argued that King should've been dragged off and not Penny.

Just from looking at that first match, it seems that sliding defence is none existent, which isn't upto the standard of a SL club whatsoever. To simplify it, most coaches will divide the defensive line into three groups of four - the middle four (two props, hooker and Loose Forward), and two 'outside fours' (Winger, Centre, Halfback and 2nd Row). On the evidence of last night's match, the middle four was very dominant up against Saints' pack, which is a very credible achievement. However, they didn't seem to 'push out' to help the centres, whether this is because they haven't been coached to or because they were too fooked from the sheer amount of work they put in, I'm unsure. However, I would prefer to see quite a wide defensive line. It looked that for the most part last night, Saints' wingers were outside our wingers and thus Penny and Hicks were exposed as they had to race out to meet them. If they were on the outside of their opposite winger, it would allow those inside them to space themselves out a bit better and leave fewer gaps if and when the ball is spread out wide.

This comes mostly from experience, though, so any positive changes won't happen overnight, certainly not with Penny. This isn't knocking Jimmy Lowes, but I don't know how well versed he is in being patient with a player like Penny. He (Lowes) must work on the weaknesses just as much as the strengths in training, as opposed to simply saying "Penny had a poor game, he's dropped", as that isn't going to help him much. He's just going to be sat in the stands wondering what he's done wrong that nobody else has.

Your comment proves you have know rugby league understanding whatsoever.

York 79

Well, likewise starting a new thread over something that's already being discussed in other threads proves you have poor nettiquette.

Sorry, but you are wrong. we are looking at a pair as a collective as part of a team structure and not necessarily at individuals. I'll leave "netiquette" to the people who are d about it. to be honest I was just posting an opinion. In fact 'norvern soul' apparently was just about to post something similar apparently. would you have pulled him for a lack of "netiquette". i think not. you are just sticking to the form of that other prat daryl catwee who seems enjoy making a negative comment about my posts.

York 79

In fairness to you both, this is a thread about why the partnership and structure isn't working, as opposed to individual frailties. Yet, at the same time, it could easily be seen as, or drifted into, King/Penny bashing, which we have pages upon pages of already.
I was going to post about the overall 'fringe defence', or lack thereof, but not exlusively Penny and King, as the opposite channel looked just as weak.

the king/penny partnership is already getting discussed in a couple of threads, there's nay need to start another one, following the first match of the season theres' been a load of threads started and most things from a-z are being covered.

And although you don't care about netiquette its tough you've signed up to the AUP when you joined. Some of us do have to try and keep this place tidy.

I'd be more worried about Monaghan and Briers partnership, were either of those two playing last night?

So we have to rely on someone who hasn't a clue about rugby league to decide on what "netiquette" shall be defined as.

York 79

Lowes has worked with Penny when he was Cullen's assistant, so he wasn't making any rash decision. Saints scored 3 tries on the right side so it was the right decision to make a change to that side.
Penny has had plenty of time to show improvements in the defense area and I just don't see it with this player. I am not drawn into the hype about "he's fast, kick a ball into free space and he'll score".

When I see the team sheet and want to have the confidence in the players who get selected, I never have this with Penny because I know that tries will always be conceeded when under attack.
For a player to improve it has to come from both sides, sure you can coach and work on their weaknesses but the player has to have the right attitude.

Last week a few of the Wire players came to visit their shirts sponsor. I had the chance to speak to Riley and a few others and Riley really was hoping for a chance to prove himself. He knew it wasn't going to be easy and was determined to improve from last year. He was generally a grounded individual and mature one at that, and that was good to see at the age of 20.
And last nights performance showed that, hats off to him. Penny came across as arrogant and was up himself even making digs at Riley (all in jest) but you could clearly see two different personalities and two different attitudes..one which was welcoming and professional the other was amateurish and predictable.

Going back to Lowes, he's been part of a team successfully winning silverware. Is he the right coach? who knows but he will be giving the youngsters a chance and will not get drawn into ego's and will give his best shot.

The pack played very well for most of the game yesterday, the backs didn't have the involvement but we did have 2 good players missing from there.
It's good to see Bridge back and I hope he continues at Centre with Johnson on the wing.
We need strength across the team with no weak links in defense. Our defense needs to improve and I would like to watch a team playing for each other.

Anyway if you're not talking wee you're talking poop. Think you should consider clearing up your own mess and buggering off.

York 79

Indeed

Seconded.