Gonna argue these points, but let me respectfully stress I am not arguing them against the writer, call it devils advocate (hate that term, I do not believe in the devil and I don't advocate for Khunts).
Excuse the preamble, Just saying here, your arguments are very popular among a lot of knowledgeable people at the moment, almost viral, everyone wants to see
Webster change the plan because of the year two syndrome tip sheet (for the Lay fan an NRL tip sheet is a legendary thing where coaches have this list of weaknesses on every team and all their players, the legend states that this is how they script the defeat of their opposition - which leads to posts about
Webster being out coached).
The problem with changing the plan, is that I think it is only called for when you have gone out there and executed Websters plan perfectly yet still get beaten.
In games, I see the opposite happening. I see the Warriors use Websters plan...at some juncture in a game...either at the beginning where Websters plan delivers them and early lead, or later when they are behind (Irony much, it is because of their very failings in executing Websters plan that they then go turbo boost using the same plan they ignored in the first place) ergo, when down against the Storm, Manly, the Titans, they start playing
Webster ball and we almost thrash our opponents for a quarter of an NRL game....however lose narrowly in the end.
A narrow loss in my books is never about the game plan. Especially when that narrow loss is against a team of such high quality and dominance as the number one team on the ladder the Melbourne Storm.
A narrow loss is a function of key moments, of refs interpretations, of the bounce of the ball, of the chaos that is what one human being can do vs another (Coates does a Michael Jordan to steal a game the Warriors were winning).
Our failure to player
Webster ball for eighty minutes means
Andrew Webster is being unfairly judged as the problem....how can a coach with a solid proven plan, be at fault, when his players have not been able to stick to it for an eighty minute period?
Sure, ok, tip sheets are real, and yes any fool with eyes can see they are being employed against us, and sure sometimes it looks bad, however, let me use an example to counter this type of thinking.
The Melbourne Storm, during their reign of terror, played a template everyone knew well.
The Warriors found a way to exploit that template with dummy half runs and the odd second phase. At one time we were the only team in the NRL with a reliable tip sheet counter to the Storms dominance.
So did the Storm change their game plan for their encounters with the Warriors? No. Not once. Because they knew, that if they played Bellamy ball for eighty minutes a week, statistically that was the more reliable path to being there on GF day.
There is an old adage in life, and one
Webster is using at the Warriors, work with what you have, design your plan around what your players are good at. Do that well and you can reach the top four, your coach can be Dally M coach of the year.
To throw all that out with the bath water for the sake of fans wanting to see something different, just because what we are seeing on telly is hard, seeing our
Webster plays thwarted is hard, I get that, but if we were playing
Webster ball correctly, for eighty minutes, no side would have posted more than eighteen points against us (eighty minutes of
Webster balls means no easy trys) had we done that this year, we would be in the top four.
I accept year two syndrome is real, I accept that teams are reading us and hunting us. However I also believe that had we played our coaches plan correctly, for whole games, that we would be harder to beat than last year where we mostly played
Webster ball.
What we need is not a change of plan, we need more minutes of the same plan.
Let me use the example of the Kiwis New Zealand international side. They need build up games to beat Australia, because the Kiwis are a hodge podge side of very talented people....guys who lack combinations....the very dynamic we face right now with our injury toll.
The reason the Kiwis upset Australia is that they adopt a very simple game plan and in tournament play they slowly get more polished with playing that simple plan until they can do it for eighty minutes, on paper they are weaker almost man for man than every Australian side ever selected.....and tellingly, the Australians are masters at adapting their plans on the foot and turning on unpredictable perfectly executed stellar superstar plays that can throw everything at you from every coaching manual in existence and beyond.
Were the Kiwis to try the same, they would lose every time. The Kiwis era of world dominance had nothing whatsoever to do with adapting game plans for opponents they had everything to do with doing what they do well. Amen.
