Post Match Dragons v Warriors - [Round 10, 2025]

[Wrighty]

Having watched the replay I really think that was our worst performance since Vegas. We really lost our way, headless at times.

Which makes it all the more impressive we were able to win. In fairness, the Dragons were fucking awful and their fans a properly putting the boot in. This was more a case of the Dragons losing than us winning - but that is the way it goes sometimes.

Lots of talk about taking the penalties. There needs to be balance with this approach. Taking the first 2 was smart. Taking the second 2 was ultra-conservative and let the Dragons off the hook.

Would love to have seen us have a crack with them on the ropes

As my tennis coach used to say. Some days you play badly. Other days you play badly because the opposition made you play badly.
Bit of bucket A and a bit of bucket B.

 

[Makasene]

I am not sure the worst part of it. Take your pick
1) it was the 4th tackle as you say
2) No one else knew it was on so he was the only kick chaser
3) We were winning and didn't need to chase the game or do anything adventurous
4) He is a fucking prop !!!!!!!

Think Barny played a bit halfs early, he has goal kicked too.

To me it didn't look like an attacking kick, looked like he was trying to hold it up down there end.

But, was symptomatic of a lot of our play yesterday which was surely not done on the training paddock through the week!

 

[Boats n Hoes]

Yes there is a difference between on top with momentum and having no idea how to score due to fatigue, instead of 34:12 or 22:4 we were 30:12 and 14:4 before getting chased down in thrillers, remember the cows were imploding when we took the 2. That’s the difference between us and Storm, ultra conservative vs ruthless to nail the coffin, we were literally doing the same thing last year in that famous loss to the Storm, had all the momentum to to go from 6:18 to 22:18, then chose 2 penalty goals instead of possibly 2 more tries against a rattled side

Union sides worked that out because they know every time they take a 3 they will have to defend in their half and possibly give up 7 every kickoff

Would be interesting to see if Fish has a different mentality

Im of a different opinion, i was ok with them taking the 2. I thought it was the right call.

In saying that its quite a good debate and there's pro's and cons either way which you and others have stated.

As always tho it is hard to speculate after the fact what might or might not have have happened, but yeah hindsight as they say. But the fact remains regardless, 2 points ended up being the difference.

For mine tho at that stage of the game if your 12 - 0 up and take the 2 youve just forced the opposition to have to score 3 times, which normally is a mental hurdle most sides struggle with (admittedly not the recent rounds it seems), which usually leads the opposition to take risks or not play the way they've planned which has many times lead to teams capitulating trying to play catch up.

Fair to say tho we saw a big momentum swing to the Dragons but was that really down to not making the opposition make another 6 more tackles (yes u could speculate that we may have scored on that set but u could just as easily speculate we turn the ball over on the next carry?) Or was it down to us maybe getting a bit complacent with the lead and losing focus leading to making errors and giving away penalties?

I tend to suggest its the 2nd thing we need to work on and its those errors compounding on the back of giving up penalties thats turning the ball over causing the fatigue and changing momentum.
First half against the Drag queens we had 5 infringements and 2 errors which turned possession over. 2nd half when the momentum swung that blew out to 7 infringements and 5 errors and in a couple of instances the error was compounded with giving away a penalty a few plays later which gives the opposition a massive roll on which is hard to peg back.

Even coach Webster in the presser alluded to the turnovers being the reason for the momentum shifts, so its good their aware of it. Obviously theres times u keep the pressure on and going for the try is the way to go, but i thought in the times we've decided to take the shot has been the right call by Barney and co.

 

[giffy]

Just a bunch of Hustlers. Didn’t ever think we were gonna lose at any stage. Which is surprising.

How did you cure yourself of PTSD? Asking for a friend

 

[Playdaball]

When was the last time a Warrior kicked a field goal, apart from SJ??

Just watching a replay of last nights game and DWZ's defence was terrible . Why does he just go for the intercept , same reason Dom Young is being released by the Roosters.

 

[run_it_str8_again]

It's an unusual play.

Mainly need to kick early in your set which isn't really part of getting out of your own end.

Late in the set it tends to be much easier to defend as the back three are coming forward to the ball and can react earlier.

It's a gimmick rule and I think I've seen maybe 1 since it was bought in

I reckon if it's legal and you train for it, it can be as genuine a goer as a 40 20 as if you take it well enough the opposition isn't usually set to defend it. Imagine if we develop a setup for strong wind days. Might be worth it. However I can't see it catching on

 

[run_it_str8_again]

Think Barny played a bit halfs early, he has goal kicked too.

To me it didn't look like an attacking kick, looked like he was trying to hold it up down there end.

But, was symptomatic of a lot of our play yesterday which was surely not done on the training paddock through the week!

Barney should tuck in under his wing and run. Leave the kicking to Sam Lisone.

 

[Wrighty]

Barney should tuck in under his wing and run. Leave the kicking to Sam Lisone.

It was a terrible play and the only reason it won't end up in the hall of fame of Warriors bad plays is that we won the match.

Hall of Fame/Shame/Plays Wrighty hated the most

1) Lisone Drop goal
2) Chanel's countless missed field goals in extra time over the years. He has never nailed one and his missed at least 5
3) Chanel missing a goober penalty to tie / lose the match vs Raiders last year
4) Patrick Herbert missing 3 Garry Owens in a row with no pressure competing with him. We lost.
5) Patrick Herbert not passing to a ready to rampage David Fafita with 30 seconds left of Titan's only play off match just 5 metres from the try line. OK this has nothing to do with the warriors but he is an ex warrior and it must have scarred Titans fans so it goes on the list.
6) Big Ken being passed the ball with 10 seconds left on the clock with a one on one match up with his opposite numbers and Warriors down by 4 points and needing a try to tie it. Big Ken weighed up his options and decided he wasn't good enough to duke anybody and meekly passed the ball to someone else and we lost.
7) Jazz asserting his authority with a late hit on a half back to show him who was boss. This was before Jazz learned to control himself. Jazz got a sinbin. They scored three times and we lost.
8) You know what Barnett can go on the list. Barnett chip and chase on 4th tackle as a prop with warriors grimly defending a one point lead when no adventurous plays were needed.
9) Tohu harris 2024 -SJ calls for Tohu to do a settler positional hit up just to the right of the posts to set him up for the winning field goal in extra time. Tohu clocks off and puts no effort into his PTB and PTB error occurs and penalty and Warriors tie instead of winning.
10) Should be number one but will list it at ten. Absolutely everything Ed Kosi did or more importantly did not do when we lost 70-10 to Melbourne Storm in the Anzac day massacre.
11) Whichever Warrior, probably Blake Green as they were friends, who invited Cameron Smith into our sheds after the massacre to give us advice on how to play better and improve.

 

[Kav1]

Couldn't agree more, good point about how the momentum swings. Even if you don't score the try you still benefit from making them do extra D and not giving them a rest which the penalties does. Given we have done it a few weeks in a row now expect teams to deliberately give it away so they can get away with 2 points and not 6

Surely the two point goal taking us more than two converted tries is incentive we need to hold out the fast finishing dragons. It is the safer option -make it more difficult for them to catch us, then kick a field goal to get back in front. They will panic after that as time ticks down to the end

 

[3rdstriker]

When was the last time a Warrior kicked a field goal, apart from SJ??

Just watching a replay of last nights game and DWZ's defence was terrible . Why does he just go for the intercept , same reason Dom Young is being released by the Roosters.

Why does he just walk back into 1st grade, taine can cope better and sooner or later a smart coach will exploit his edge even more.

 

[Kav1]

Yes there is a difference between on top with momentum and having no idea how to score due to fatigue, instead of 34:12 or 22:4 we were 30:12 and 14:4 before getting chased down in thrillers, remember the cows were imploding when we took the 2. That’s the difference between us and Storm, ultra conservative vs ruthless to nail the coffin, we were literally doing the same thing last year in that famous loss to the Storm, had all the momentum to to go from 6:18 to 22:18, then chose 2 penalty goals instead of possibly 2 more tries against a rattled side

Union sides worked that out because they know every time they take a 3 they will have to defend in their half and possibly give up 7 every kickoff

Would be interesting to see if Fish has a different mentality

I think that the mentality should be to secure the two points first before increasing the margin.

 

[Kav1]

When they started it the thinking was that by the time you do a long kick and they run it back, you end up tackling them about the same area as the short kick off. So they said why don't we compete for possession which could turn a repeat set on defence into possession.

The rule was if the kick didn't reach the 10m line, then the attacking team got a penalty in front. This discouraged the short kick off. Now the rule has been changed to a tap and six tackles, encouraging the short kick as it becomes 50/50 ball and no automatic penalty if the defensive team fails to regather the ball.

 

[Kav1]

Im of a different opinion, i was ok with them taking the 2. I thought it was the right call.

In saying that its quite a good debate and there's pro's and cons either way which you and others have stated.

As always tho it is hard to speculate after the fact what might or might not have have happened, but yeah hindsight as they say. But the fact remains regardless, 2 points ended up being the difference.

For mine tho at that stage of the game if your 12 - 0 up and take the 2 youve just forced the opposition to have to score 3 times, which normally is a mental hurdle most sides struggle with (admittedly not the recent rounds it seems), which usually leads the opposition to take risks or not play the way they've planned which has many times lead to teams capitulating trying to play catch up.

Fair to say tho we saw a big momentum swing to the Dragons but was that really down to not making the opposition make another 6 more tackles (yes u could speculate that we may have scored on that set but u could just as easily speculate we turn the ball over on the next carry?) Or was it down to us maybe getting a bit complacent with the lead and losing focus leading to making errors and giving away penalties?

I tend to suggest its the 2nd thing we need to work on and its those errors compounding on the back of giving up penalties thats turning the ball over causing the fatigue and changing momentum.
First half against the Drag queens we had 5 infringements and 2 errors which turned possession over. 2nd half when the momentum swung that blew out to 7 infringements and 5 errors and in a couple of instances the error was compounded with giving away a penalty a few plays later which gives the opposition a massive roll on which is hard to peg back.

Even coach Webster in the presser alluded to the turnovers being the reason for the momentum shifts, so its good their aware of it. Obviously theres times u keep the pressure on and going for the try is the way to go, but i thought in the times we've decided to take the shot has been the right call by Barney and co.

I absolutely agree. By going for the try rather than the guaranteed two points, we risk having the opposition infringe on our playing of the ball, stripping of the ball or being offside. This might not be picked up by the ref or bunker and we would forgone the two points.

 

[run_it_str8_again]

I absolutely agree. By going for the try rather than the guaranteed two points, we risk having the opposition infringe on our playing of the ball, stripping of the ball or being offside. This might not be picked up by the ref or bunker and we would forgone the two points.

Always take the two points. 99% of the time.

 

[Tookey 2.0]

Always take the two points. 99% of the time.

 

[Kaos A.D.]

Depends really, if it's early in the game and you have all the momentum I'd say tap and keep that pressure on, if it's a seesaw tight affair two points very well could be the difference, also putting it out to where the opposition has to score twice, three times etc pulls the pressure off you and back on them...

 

[run_it_str8_again]

View attachment 12972

Exactly. Hahahaha

There is no guarantee that he would ice the kick or that we would ice a try.

What I like and I didn't always see this in SJ is a decisive playemaker. Backing himself and winning a game. We need that bloke to back himself and succeed. I like it.

 

[sup42]

Im of a different opinion, i was ok with them taking the 2. I thought it was the right call.

In saying that its quite a good debate and there's pro's and cons either way which you and others have stated.

As always tho it is hard to speculate after the fact what might or might not have have happened, but yeah hindsight as they say. But the fact remains regardless, 2 points ended up being the difference.

For mine tho at that stage of the game if your 12 - 0 up and take the 2 youve just forced the opposition to have to score 3 times, which normally is a mental hurdle most sides struggle with (admittedly not the recent rounds it seems), which usually leads the opposition to take risks or not play the way they've planned which has many times lead to teams capitulating trying to play catch up.

Fair to say tho we saw a big momentum swing to the Dragons but was that really down to not making the opposition make another 6 more tackles (yes u could speculate that we may have scored on that set but u could just as easily speculate we turn the ball over on the next carry?) Or was it down to us maybe getting a bit complacent with the lead and losing focus leading to making errors and giving away penalties?

I tend to suggest its the 2nd thing we need to work on and its those errors compounding on the back of giving up penalties thats turning the ball over causing the fatigue and changing momentum.
First half against the Drag queens we had 5 infringements and 2 errors which turned possession over. 2nd half when the momentum swung that blew out to 7 infringements and 5 errors and in a couple of instances the error was compounded with giving away a penalty a few plays later which gives the opposition a massive roll on which is hard to peg back.

Even coach Webster in the presser alluded to the turnovers being the reason for the momentum shifts, so its good their aware of it. Obviously theres times u keep the pressure on and going for the try is the way to go, but i thought in the times we've decided to take the shot has been the right call by Barney and co.

I was following the NRL or Winfield cup as it was when League decided to try Rugby Union Kickers, as I am sure many of the older posters will remember.

Many fans now do not realise that goal kicking was not a priority in Rugby league before the experimental inclusion of the New Zealand Rugby Union kickers in the eighties.

I won't bang on like an old fart, just to say we learned from that history that using your goal kicker is never the wrong option - it changed the entire sport....goal kicking.....everyone takes it seriously now because clubs won championships off it.

Still look back with glee at the time when the Aussies were saying that Halligan and Ridge were stupid buys and that they wouldn't make it in the NRL.....

(Nota bene: Mic Cronin was a kicking great pre the arrival of the Allblacks in the NRL, but he was the exception that proves the rule - fact still stands that Rugby Union taught league about goal kickers - a lesson forgotten by league eighty years after the split).

 

[MrFrankWhite]

I am not sure the worst part of it. Take your pick
1) it was the 4th tackle as you say
2) No one else knew it was on so he was the only kick chaser
3) We were winning and didn't need to chase the game or do anything adventurous
4) He is a fucking prop !!!!!!!

Barnett used to very famously have brain explosions, normally resulting in time on the sidelines. He has reigned that in massively to where its non existent, but he has a couple in him. He was panicking for around 5-10mins during that period. Pretty sure he gave a pen away as well as a few errant passes.

I think he's just putting the team on his back. Metcalf is inexperienced, Fish is out.

 

[run_it_str8_again]

Barnett used to very famously have brain explosions, normally resulting in time on the sidelines. He has reigned that in massively to where its non existent, but he has a couple in him. He was panicking for around 5-10mins during that period. Pretty sure he gave a pen away as well as a few errant passes.

I think he's just putting the team on his back. Metcalf is inexperienced, Fish is out.

When it's all falling apart you do as Barney did or you rally your guys and do it together. Lose that game and this and many other in game happenings become way more important hey