I’m starting to think, that our defensive tactic is to let the opposition come to us, rather then moving up and nailing them. That’s what it’s looked like this season anyway. Get away with it against some teams, but not the better opposition

On topic - Widdop

I've thought the same for a while now and maybe it's about energy conservation and hoping we stay fresher for longer in games

Every time we get up there and at them, we concede a pen for a high shot or offside.

Now can I say that your comment is spot on for me, I've been saying for weeks, we seem happy to let most teams put 60 odd yards on us in any given set of six so they are ending their sets every time with a dangerous up and under rather than forcing them to make a much safer kick for distance because we have restricted their yards. Good point!

Let’s hope the team sat down together and watched the Melbourne v Manly game, perfect example how to defend with intensity, absolutely brutal, loved it

I appreciate you're only hypothesising but I don't think any coach worth their salt could possibly think you will conserve energy by hanging back in defence.

Giving up ground like that you'll simply spend a disproportionate amount of time defending your own line and consume more energy defending the repeat sets the opposition will inevitably force.

What's your theory then?

I don't think it's a deliberate strategy. I just don't think they've been coached to be aggressive in defence.

I'm not buying that, a rugby team not coached to be aggressive in defence.

It's a deliberate tactical ploy we've employed through the last few seasons, hold the defensive line and let them come to us.

I've also been frustrated with this method.

Well the only people who know for certain are the coaching staff and players.

Way back in 1994 when I did my coaching badges the official coaching manual, written by Phil Larder, stated that one of the tactics that RL had adopted from the NFL was gaining ground in defence by aggressively moving forward on defence and forcing the opposition back.

Though that may be a long time ago I do not know any team that has since decided to move away from it and deliberately concede ground in defence for the reasons I outlined above.

I would therefore be astonished if Radford had decided to innovate and deliberately adopt such a strategy.

Maybe someone could ask him in a post match interview.

I don't think we concede ground we just do not move up. We hold a constant sliding defensive line.

Hence why Austin had all the time in the world to kick with no pressure applied.

That's another reason why is important to move up quickly (but still as a straight line) to restrict the opposition playmakers, not allow them time to play and force mistakes.

Warrington did it really well for their first try. Came up really quick in defence, put pressure on Ratu (IIRC) who dropped it and they scored

I agree it's immensely frustrating to watch.

Me neither, I can’t believe a coach would encourage the defenders not to aggressively defend or allow the attackers to gain a few extra metres.

Out muscling the attacking line stifles the attack and to a degree gains psychological edge.

In some matches when there’s been a bit of a fight you’ll often see the aggression in defence increase and it certainly doesn’t do any harm

i think you're being a bit harsh here, you got near him a lot more than you think, maybe not every time but it was bugging me that he was being put under pressure when we were letting sneyd get touchfinders in the first half, unopposed.