Post Match Raiders v Warriors - [Round 1, 2025]

[Mr Drag]

Barnett replaced after 21 minutes! What were you thinking Webby! Please explain?

 

[BangBro's (still banging)]

Barnett replaced after 21 minutes! What were you thinking Webby! Please explain?

Maybe they were getting paid by Ford motors and therefore playing Jackson Ford for straight 51mins!

 

[Mr Drag]

Maybe they were getting paid by Ford motors and therefore playing Jackson Ford for straight 51mins!

Ford is just a waste of salary like Niukore

 

[Inruin]

@Wrighty, I think this year is a defining one for Webster. It’s unfortunate because he’s clearly a long-term thinker, just getting started in his coaching career. But the hype machine driven by Cam and the NZ media around "Wah-mania" has created expectations that commercial success alone can't sustain if the team keeps floundering. And it’s not just about losing — it’s how they’re losing.

Webster seems determined to turn the Warriors into a Penrith clone, mirroring their style and development model. The problem? He’s not Ivan Cleary, Metcalf is not Nathan Cleary, and the roster isn’t built for that approach. Where Penrith have game-breaking talent, the Warriors have inconsistency. Where the Panthers excel at disciplined, structured play, the Warriors have players who, in many cases, wouldn’t start at most NRL clubs.

The only coach who truly unlocked the Warriors’ potential was Daniel Anderson. He didn’t try to copy anyone — he built a team around the talent he had, blending work ethic, competitiveness, and natural skill into a style uniquely suited to them. No one since has replicated that formula.

Coaches imprint their personality onto their teams. Ricky Stuart’s Raiders reflect his hard-nosed, win-at-all-costs mentality. Craig Bellamy's Melbourne sides mirror his relentless work ethic from his playing days. Des Hasler's teams, like him, are intense, unorthodox, and tireless.

And Webster? He’s a nice guy, a personable guy, and his Warriors play exactly like that — safe, predictable, and completely lacking in bite. There’s no aggression, no spark, just rigid adherence to a system that already feels outdated.

What's your take on the magic round win and the two games after that last season? It felt like AW basically didn't think the team had a chance and left them to their own devices which actually worked well. Less robotic, the team seemed more cohesive. Then it kinda felt like AW wanted to take those players and reintroduce some of the older players that hadn't been performing and mold the team in to his conservative game plan again. A player like TMM for example is not going to be able to stick rigidly to a bomb to the corner and chase plan. It's like he is taking all the points of difference of players that other coaches maximise and dumbs it down to a boring style of play. Zero innovation, zero x factor, zero enjoyment for fans and players. Or am I way off here?

 

[roguei]

@Wrighty, I think this year is a defining one for Webster. It’s unfortunate because he’s clearly a long-term thinker, just getting started in his coaching career. But the hype machine driven by Cam and the NZ media around "Wah-mania" has created expectations that commercial success alone can't sustain if the team keeps floundering. And it’s not just about losing — it’s how they’re losing.

Webster seems determined to turn the Warriors into a Penrith clone, mirroring their style and development model. The problem? He’s not Ivan Cleary, Metcalf is not Nathan Cleary, and the roster isn’t built for that approach. Where Penrith have game-breaking talent, the Warriors have inconsistency. Where the Panthers excel at disciplined, structured play, the Warriors have players who, in many cases, wouldn’t start at most NRL clubs.

The only coach who truly unlocked the Warriors’ potential was Daniel Anderson. He didn’t try to copy anyone — he built a team around the talent he had, blending work ethic, competitiveness, and natural skill into a style uniquely suited to them. No one since has replicated that formula.

Coaches imprint their personality onto their teams. Ricky Stuart’s Raiders reflect his hard-nosed, win-at-all-costs mentality. Craig Bellamy's Melbourne sides mirror his relentless work ethic from his playing days. Des Hasler's teams, like him, are intense, unorthodox, and tireless.

And Webster? He’s a nice guy, a personable guy, and his Warriors play exactly like that — safe, predictable, and completely lacking in bite. There’s no aggression, no spark, just rigid adherence to a system that already feels outdated.

I find it interesting comparing Webster to Cleary. It took Cleary six years to take the Warriors to a Grand Final, so it's not like his approach didn’t work—it just took time. Now, the debate is whether people liked the 2006-2011 playstyle or if it was completely different from how he coached the Panthers.

That said, I don’t think missing out on Cleary long-term is a major issue. It worked before, so there’s no reason it can’t work again. Losing him as a coach was arguably the worst decision Warriors management ever made, but success doesn’t happen overnight—it took time back then, and it will take time now.

As for whether Webster can reach Cleary’s level? Who knows yet. Do the warriors still suit a ivan style? I'm also unsure.

I guess my point is, i don't know if its a bad thing to be bringing a ivan style culture back to the warriors as it worked before. But it took time to do so, as does any system that needs juniors. But you bring up great points and i agree that we seem to of lost some aggression and spark.

 

[Brightman]

Why? We are better than Saturday. But our club tends to lose all the games with the massive hype. We are not mature enough to deal with that level of scrutiny and pressure and our boys get bright lights in their eyes. We didn’t come out of the gates with enough sustained intensity. We made too many mistakes.

This makes for an interesting discussion, is it that we have no Marquee/Dally M level player to take the game by the scruff of the neck..

 

[run_it_str8_again]

It's interlinked.

Athletes are heavily monitored.

Everything they eat, how much sleep they have, what training they do; it all makes a difference.

Hitting each other with a blow up bat is stupid, yes, but hardly affects their ability to play.

Staying up late, playing highly addictive and mentally draining games is much worse. Argue all you want, but casinos are designed, specifically, to exhaust you into making poor decisions.

if we had just lost, I wouldn't care. But there were pretty worrying signs early on in the game that a huge portion of the players just werent there mentally.

I don't have a need to win or argue. I stand by my view and opinion and can at the same time see yours and everyone else's as well.

 

[run_it_str8_again]

The show finished after. Lets say in bed at 1am, up at 7am. Thats 6hrs nominal. so 5-5.5 actual. Add alcohol and that goes down by 1/2. So you are looking at around 2.5 hrs of actually brain and muscle recovery...

Thats not what a professional would do.

It is what professionals used to do. Before all the strict monitoring.

Put them on a curfew and increase awareness through education. See y'all in two well managed well coached well applied well educated weeks.

A number of the game's legends and immortals would likely have been sacked and imprisoned if monitored in modern ways

 

[FormerlyJamesW]

I don't have a need to win or argue. I stand by my view and opinion and can at the same time see yours and everyone else's as well.

Fair enough.

To clarify, I wasn't saying anyone was wrong or right.

Similiar to you, I was just offering my two cents.

 

[run_it_str8_again]

Fair enough.

To clarify, I wasn't saying anyone was wrong or right.

Similiar to you, I was just offering my two cents.

I understand the casino design that you explained. And when I watched the week of build up and hype I saw the hype struck eyes of some of our never been overseas youngsters. Oh well. Hope they enjoyed the trip

 

[Inruin]

It is what professionals used to do. Before all the strict monitoring.

Put them on a curfew and increase awareness through education. See y'all in two well managed well coached well applied well educated weeks.

A number of the game's legends and immortals would likely have been sacked and imprisoned if monitored in modern ways

Times have changed though and what was acceptable then doesn't necessarily fit in today's game. It's like saying the training they used to do back then is sufficient for today. Quite clearly it's not going to be.

 

[snake77]

The players staying out late wouldn't be an issue if we were winning. Everything gets magnified more when you are losing.

Coming off a losing season like last year and all of the talk about everyone being fit and dialled in. Then you hear about players being out late. Similar questions can be made about management and the overall preparation. The club said they looked into travelling and decided straight to Vegas was best. The other teams also got there earlier. So that is something that should be looked at.

The variables = the players deciding this really is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

It's disappointing for their teammates that decided to put performance first. Also the sports science staff trying to get everyone ready to perform.

If everyone performed and we still lost due to inexperience or embedding new systems fine. It is more the talk beforehand about all of the preparation and everyone is ready to play.

 

[Inruin]

The one positive to all of this is that the performance and result was so poor it has basically ripped the band aid off and exposed the wound. How we treat the abscess now is the big question.

 

[run_it_str8_again]

Times have changed though and what was acceptable then doesn't necessarily fit in today's game. It's like saying the training they used to do back then is sufficient for today. Quite clearly it's not going to be.

I get that. We lost and I see that the pre match eve activities contributed to possible poor performance causes.

I think though that the lack of defensive and offensive punch was what let us down. Their pack.

I can accept though that there are more issues in play.

 

[snake77]

I find it interesting comparing Webster to Cleary. It took Cleary six years to take the Warriors to a Grand Final, so it's not like his approach didn’t work—it just took time. Now, the debate is whether people liked the 2006-2011 playstyle or if it was completely different from how he coached the Panthers.

That said, I don’t think missing out on Cleary long-term is a major issue. It worked before, so there’s no reason it can’t work again. Losing him as a coach was arguably the worst decision Warriors management ever made, but success doesn’t happen overnight—it took time back then, and it will take time now.

As for whether Webster can reach Cleary’s level? Who knows yet. Do the warriors still suit a ivan style? I'm also unsure.

I guess my point is, i don't know if its a bad thing to be bringing a ivan style culture back to the warriors as it worked before. But it took time to do so, as does any system that needs juniors. But you bring up great points and i agree that we seem to of lost some aggression and spark.

People criticise the playing style from 2006 - 2011. The old kick it to Manu trope.

Personally, I'm fine with it. Why? we were competitive and we were making the finals more often than not. The exception being 2006 where we started on -4 points. We gave it a good shake and just missed out on the finals. Than 2009 which I can accept they were either going to perform for Sonny or it was going to hit them hard.

He did well with the halves he had.

We also had some wins when we'd come from behind or last minute wins.

If we compete week in and week out and the opposition has to earn their victories that is a bit more tolerable.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

The difference between winning and losing can be so small it can be imperceptible. Look at RTS's missed try off that kick. Milliseconds between success and failure. CNK's fluff at the back, again milliseconds.

People criticise the playing style from 2006 - 2011. The old kick it to Manu trope.

Personally, I'm fine with it. Why? we were competitive and we were making the finals more often than not. The exception being 2006 where we started on -4 points. We gave it a good shake and just missed out on the finals. Than 2009 which I can accept they were either going to perform for Sonny or it was going to hit them hard.

He did well with the halves he had.

We also had some wins when we'd come from behind or last minute wins.

If we compete week in and week out and the opposition has to earn their victories that is a bit more tolerable.

I was kinda hoping we’d see a lot of kicking high to RTS to compete. I think they tried it once.

 

[#robbiemears]

What's your take on the magic round win and the two games after that last season? It felt like AW basically didn't think the team had a chance and left them to their own devices which actually worked well. Less robotic, the team seemed more cohesive. Then it kinda felt like AW wanted to take those players and reintroduce some of the older players that hadn't been performing and mold the team in to his conservative game plan again. A player like TMM for example is not going to be able to stick rigidly to a bomb to the corner and chase plan. It's like he is taking all the points of difference if players that other coaches maximise and dumbs it down to a boring style of play. Zero innovation, zero x factor, zero enjoyment for fans and players. Or am I way off here?

I agree @Inruin. When the young players were thrown in, the team played with freedom and spontaneity, and that energy was contagious. Their natural, free-flowing style suited the talent on the field, but it was never going to last. As soon as he could, Webby reverted to structure, and whatever excitement had been building quickly faded.

Webby seems to hold a certain reverence for players with established credentials — those with Origin or international experience. He brings it up often when discussing certain players, almost as if he’s in awe of them. As someone who was deeply passionate about rugby league but never reached the top level as a player, I wonder if, subconsciously, he has an inferiority complex that influences his selection decisions.

The problem is, I don’t think he has it in him to make the tough calls. Struggling senior players like Capewell, CNK, and Niukore continue to hold their spots, while journeymen like Pompey and Ford are still filling key positions when they clearly shouldn’t be.

To truly turn things around, he’d need a complete shift in mindset — one that fully embraces and actively promotes the next generation of Warriors talent. The best NRL coaches wouldn’t hesitate to make those changes. I’m just not convinced Webster is one of them. Not yet anyway!

 

[Rick O’Shay]

Watched the first half again and there were a couple of "Holy Shit, this is not an exhibition game" looks on a few faces

We are not renowned as a big event team as Melbourne can testify. Just wonder how the whole Vegas thing affected attitude and whether we might have seen a different result at Mt Smart or Bruce Stadium?

 

[run_it_str8_again]

Glad to hear you calling it out mate. Something is rotting at Warriors HQ and we can’t blame Addin anymore.

Are we seeing a repeat of the sleeping pills saga where the senior guys are running the ship?

Webby too immature? Wants to be liked too much? Not hard enough?

 

[3rdstriker]

I’m starting to get the vibe that Webby is just a nice guy and good man manager. Really struggling to see the high IQ decisions.

I’m even starting to question if he even has a feel for the flow of a game.

Yep sack another.