Worried2Death
Contributor
I think NRL coaches can make reactive tactical/positional decisions on the fly, that's what water runners are for. Not as instant as NHL coaches granted.The two sports I follow are NRL (rugby league) and NHL (ice hockey), I've noticed lately a huge difference in the way the games are coached on the fly.
The setup is easier in hockey; the coach is standing behind the team, the players rotate constantly, they can also call a timeout (usually used for a team talk to try and change momentum). Teams start with 4 forward lines and 3 defence pairings, but a coach will juggle these lines during a game, and sit players out completely if they need to. These coaches seem way more on top of a game, constantly reacting to what's in front of them.
In comparison rugby league coaches are sitting up in a box miles away, and have just one chance at half time to address the full team. Our coaches seem to have predetermined ideas about processes or gameplans or whatever, and the team can't go off this script. It also seems like interchanges are part of these plans and only ever change for injuries, rather than reading the game and reacting to what's needed on the field, or as a way to change in momentum.
Some of the better teams have players who can analyse a game and react accordingly. If one of the opposition is limping or struggling to get into position on the right side, how likely are we to shift that way and target them? I'd say there's a 99% chance the bomb will still go up on the other side as per usual.
I guess what I'm saying is, what I don't like about Andrew Webster's coaching style is that there seems to be just one plan, and if it doesn't work out, we're done for. This year it's reminding me of unsuccessful past coaches.
Also no game plan is ever going to work if players constantly drop balls and miss tackles, those are fundamentals that all professionals are able to do, something must be mentally affecting the team this year.