Official Briton Nikora

Cynic in him will say that since he got a taste of Origin football (and Origin money), he wants to become a mainstay. And since right now he's not guaranteed a spot on reputation alone, he has to keep working hard.

I merely hope that he's found some form after fixing any issues (mental, physical and whatnot) he may have had. But one swallow doesn't make a summer. It'd be great to see this version of Brit from now on.
 
McInnes - "Brit, his marker play is probably the best in the game".

@Sharks NRL Prospects is that as simple as just working hard, mainly laterally from marker? Getting into the tackle from the side/legs?

I never played the game at a high level to know this stuff, and can't say I notice it much more than when he makes some good consecutive efforts.
No. It’s not about just working hard.

When I played it was very much about marker 1 getting out and working hard, and marker 2 holding to cover the dummy half run. Players were lauded for making consecutive tackles. When I played colts (u19) we even got little prizes/bonuses any time we were able to be involved in every tackle of the set. Most people who watch the game now are old enough to have played under that old system. That’s why at every game played there is some bloke yelling “markers work”. Mums and dads telling their kids to chase from marker in situations where they shouldn’t was such a problem in my teams that I ended up just banning centres and wingers from going to marker ever.

The game moved on from this system some time ago but it still gets applied in some situations (e.g. last tackle kick pressure, close to sidelines, when you have a team pinned in a corner). Like most things though it was evolution rather than revolution. Coaches started experimenting with different marker systems when defending their own line (one marker, no markers, no chasing hard) and when they finally figured out what worked they started using it farther from their own try-line.

The "problem" with the old system is that of marker 1 chases hard but the attackers decide to bring the ball back to where marker 2 is standing it can leave a lot of space between marker 2 and each of the A defenders. This was a pet play from DCE and Turbo on the 5th. When I played lock I was very much about trying to beat the first marker with the timing of my run at the advantage line and then stepping back in to attack between the A defenders or finding a runner straight up the middle. I had a lot of success with that.

The good thing about the old system though is that it is really easy to coach. If you have a big slow kid in the middle you just tell him his job is to always be second marker and avoid getting to first. Your workers you tell the opposite. Workers get out and do their thing, and the big kid uses less energy and ends up being in the right position for the scoot or the attack back through the ruck just by "doing nothing". In my experience for normal club/school footy where you have kids of mixed abilities and attention spans it's probably a better way to win games - because the new way takes a lot of work to get right, and even good players get it wrong.

Except for in niche situations the "new" way to play marker isn't just about working hard. It's about creating a straight line in defence as quickly as possible, and not leaving too much of a gap (like Pollard did above). Rather than chasing out hard the markers actually want to make a backwards movement a lot of the time, because that creates a line with the A defenders either side quicker (this is called "tying in"). Defences would rather concede the extra few metres but keep the line intact. All of this requires communication between the markers themselves, and also the fullback doing a good job of placing the A defenders. If/when the ball goes to a one-off runner it is then about the markers working hard in their first few steps to close the gap between themselves and the runner, but if the ball goes wide they hold position because keeping the line straight is still the best way to defend.

Here are a couple of crappy screen captures. Hiroti first marker (#23), Brailey second marker. Niwhai and JC are the A defenders with good spacing.

1780872378153.png

Look where Hiroti ends up here relative to the 40m line. His first movement is backwards. He's the left centre but has done his job well here to tie-in with Colquhoun at A. Once the Sharks get numbers in tackles everyone else he goes back to his edge and Brailey et al push in one spot.

If they had taken a one-pass hitup here Hiroti would have accelerated to shorten the space between he and the runner, which means either he makes contact or the player runs to his left and gets gobbled up by A, B and C.

1780872415744.png


If Cam is saying that Nikora is doing great work at marker that would be a combination of some great play in the opposition's end pinning them down in the "get out quick and either chop the legs or hold them up and wait for help" situation, but also kick pressure on the last, effort, communication and decision making in "normal" marker situations.
 
Last edited:
No. It’s not about just working hard.

When I played it was very much about marker 1 getting out and working hard, and marker 2 holding to cover the dummy half run. Players were lauded for making consecutive tackles. When I played colts (u19) we even got little prizes/bonuses any time we were able to be involved in every tackle of the set. Most people who watch the game now are old enough to have played under that old system. I’m that’s why at every game played there is some bloke yelling “markers work”. Mums and dads telling their kids to chase from marker in situations where they shouldn’t was such a problem in my teams that I ended up just banning centres and wingers from going to marker ever.

The game moved on from this system some time ago but it still gets applied in some situations (e.g. last tackle kick pressure, and you have a team pinned in a corner). Like most things though it was evolution rather than revolution. Coaches started experimenting with different marker systems when defending their own line (one marker, no markers, no chasing hard) and when they finally figured out what worked they started using it farther from their own try-line.

The "problem" with the old system is that of marker 1 chases hard but the attackers decide to bring the ball back to where marker 2 is standing it can leave a lot of space between marker 2 and each of the A defenders. This was a pet play from DCE and Turbo on the 5th. When I played lock I was very much about trying to beat the first marker with the timing of my run at the advantage line and then stepping back in to attack between the A defenders or finding a runner straight up the middle.

The good thing about the old system though is that it is really easy to coach. If you have a big slow kid in the middle you just tell him his job is to always be second marker and avoid getting to first. Your workers you tell the opposite. Workers get out and do their thing, and the big kid uses less energy and ends up being in the right position for the scoot or the attack back through the ruck just by "doing nothing". In my experience for normal club/school footy where you have kids of mixed abilities and attention spans it's probably a better way to win games - because the new way takes a lot of work to get right, and even good players get it wrong.

Except for in niche situations the "new" way to play marker isn't just about working hard. It's about creating a straight line in defence as quickly as possible, and not leaving too much of a gap (like Pollard did above). Rather than chasing out hard the markers actually want to make a backwards movement a lot of the time, because that creates a line with the A defenders either side quicker (this is called "tying in"). Defences would rather conceded the extra few metres but keep the line intact. All of this requires communication between the markers themselves, and also the fullback doing a good job of placing the A defenders. One the ball goes to a one-off runner it is then about the markers working hard in their first few steps to close the gap between themselves and the runner, but if the ball goes wide they hold position because keeping the line straight is still the best way to defend.

Here are a couple of crappy screen captures. Hiroti first marker (#23), Brailey second marker. Niwhai and JC are the A defenders with good spacing.

View attachment 35033

Look where Hiroti ends up. He's the left centre but has done his job well here to tie-ion with Colquhoun at A. Once the Sharks get numbers in tackles everyone else he goes back to his edge and Brailey et al push in one spot.

If they had taken a one-pass hitup here Hiroti would have accelerated to shorten the space between he and the runner, which means either he makes contact or the player runs to his left and gets gobbled up by A, B and C.

View attachment 35034


If Cam is saying that Nikora is doing great work at marker that would be a combination of some great play in the opposition's end pinning them down in the "get out quick and either chop the legs or hold them up and wait for help" situation, but also kick pressure on the last, effort, communication and decision making in "normal" marker situations.
What’s the too long, didn’t read option of this?
 
No. It’s not about just working hard.

When I played it was very much about marker 1 getting out and working hard, and marker 2 holding to cover the dummy half run. Players were lauded for making consecutive tackles. When I played colts (u19) we even got little prizes/bonuses any time we were able to be involved in every tackle of the set. Most people who watch the game now are old enough to have played under that old system. That’s why at every game played there is some bloke yelling “markers work”. Mums and dads telling their kids to chase from marker in situations where they shouldn’t was such a problem in my teams that I ended up just banning centres and wingers from going to marker ever.

The game moved on from this system some time ago but it still gets applied in some situations (e.g. last tackle kick pressure, close to sidelines, when you have a team pinned in a corner). Like most things though it was evolution rather than revolution. Coaches started experimenting with different marker systems when defending their own line (one marker, no markers, no chasing hard) and when they finally figured out what worked they started using it farther from their own try-line.

The "problem" with the old system is that of marker 1 chases hard but the attackers decide to bring the ball back to where marker 2 is standing it can leave a lot of space between marker 2 and each of the A defenders. This was a pet play from DCE and Turbo on the 5th. When I played lock I was very much about trying to beat the first marker with the timing of my run at the advantage line and then stepping back in to attack between the A defenders or finding a runner straight up the middle. I had a lot of success with that.

The good thing about the old system though is that it is really easy to coach. If you have a big slow kid in the middle you just tell him his job is to always be second marker and avoid getting to first. Your workers you tell the opposite. Workers get out and do their thing, and the big kid uses less energy and ends up being in the right position for the scoot or the attack back through the ruck just by "doing nothing". In my experience for normal club/school footy where you have kids of mixed abilities and attention spans it's probably a better way to win games - because the new way takes a lot of work to get right, and even good players get it wrong.

Except for in niche situations the "new" way to play marker isn't just about working hard. It's about creating a straight line in defence as quickly as possible, and not leaving too much of a gap (like Pollard did above). Rather than chasing out hard the markers actually want to make a backwards movement a lot of the time, because that creates a line with the A defenders either side quicker (this is called "tying in"). Defences would rather concede the extra few metres but keep the line intact. All of this requires communication between the markers themselves, and also the fullback doing a good job of placing the A defenders. If/when the ball goes to a one-off runner it is then about the markers working hard in their first few steps to close the gap between themselves and the runner, but if the ball goes wide they hold position because keeping the line straight is still the best way to defend.

Here are a couple of crappy screen captures. Hiroti first marker (#23), Brailey second marker. Niwhai and JC are the A defenders with good spacing.

View attachment 35033

Look where Hiroti ends up here relative to the 40m line. His first movement is backwards. He's the left centre but has done his job well here to tie-in with Colquhoun at A. Once the Sharks get numbers in tackles everyone else he goes back to his edge and Brailey et al push in one spot.

If they had taken a one-pass hitup here Hiroti would have accelerated to shorten the space between he and the runner, which means either he makes contact or the player runs to his left and gets gobbled up by A, B and C.

View attachment 35034


If Cam is saying that Nikora is doing great work at marker that would be a combination of some great play in the opposition's end pinning them down in the "get out quick and either chop the legs or hold them up and wait for help" situation, but also kick pressure on the last, effort, communication and decision making in "normal" marker situations.
Legend! This is super informative and helpful.

My take aways are work hard in certain situations and tie in to fill the gap behind the ruck in others. Which all makes sense.

Would you say Nikora does well in kick pressure? I tend to find most of our side a little complacent in this area. Mainly because someone new like Hohepa/Berrell come on and seem to really work hard at it, making the effort stand out over the others. That could be because they aren't playing 80 they can front load a bit more energy into that area though. JC is generally pretty good at it too.

A great example of it being effective was Munster v Ponga this week. He gave Ponga nightmares getting up on him quick, and in my opinion made a big impact on winning that game. I'd love to see us be a bit more aggressive in kick pressure like this.
 
Legend! This is super informative and helpful.

My take aways are work hard in certain situations and tie in to fill the gap behind the ruck in others. Which all makes sense.

Would you say Nikora does well in kick pressure? I tend to find most of our side a little complacent in this area. Mainly because someone new like Hohepa/Berrell come on and seem to really work hard at it, making the effort stand out over the others. That could be because they aren't playing 80 they can front load a bit more energy into that area though. JC is generally pretty good at it too.

A great example of it being effective was Munster v Ponga this week. He gave Ponga nightmares getting up on him quick, and in my opinion made a big impact on winning that game. I'd love to see us be a bit more aggressive in kick pressure like this.
I think with kick pressure in the NRL we are in a state of unknown because of the rep/bunker going bananas over contact on the kicker. Some NRL teams have stopped bothering at all, and others make a token effort. I think if you are watching established Sharks players they would likely be doing what the coach wants. Players called up from Cup are in the habit of still working their assess off because no bunker down there.
 
I think with kick pressure in the NRL we are in a state of unknown because of the rep/bunker going bananas over contact on the kicker. Some NRL teams have stopped bothering at all, and others make a token effort. I think if you are watching established Sharks players they would likely be doing what the coach wants. Players called up from Cup are in the habit of still working their assess off because no bunker down there.
Yeah I had wondered that. I'd certainly call our pressure token at best. It's disappointing because of how effective it is when done well like Munster did. But I guess as you said the coach doesn't want to take the risk.

Toby had one really good effort in the first half (late in his stint for all the fat shamers) which resulted in us finally fielding a kick on the 30 or so. I find it very frustrating particularly when losing the field position battle like we were that the risk isn't seen as worth it to try shift the momentum.
 
Yeah I had wondered that. I'd certainly call our pressure token at best. It's disappointing because of how effective it is when done well like Munster did. But I guess as you said the coach doesn't want to take the risk.

Toby had one really good effort in the first half (late in his stint for all the fat shamers) which resulted in us finally fielding a kick on the 30 or so. I find it very frustrating particularly when losing the field position battle like we were that the risk isn't seen as worth it to try shift the momentum.
I think the focus in some cases has gone from genuine kick pressure to just forcing the kick / stopping the run.

I also think little things like this are having an impact on the game just as much as set restarts. i.e. Kickers having more time means more accurate kicks to contests and more chance of getting the ball back.
 
I think the focus in some cases has gone from genuine kick pressure to just forcing the kick / stopping the run.

I also think little things like this are having an impact on the game just as much as set restarts. i.e. Kickers having more time means more accurate kicks to contests and more chance of getting the ball back.
I saw Joey have a big rant a month or two back about kickers now being over protected. They have so much time and space, not just for accurate kicks like you say but for the spiral bombs etc. The balance has been lost a bit.
 
I saw Joey have a big rant a month or two back about kickers now being over protected. They have so much time and space, not just for accurate kicks like you say but for the spiral bombs etc. The balance has been lost a bit.
When things like that Josh Curran charge down the other week get called back and a penalty given you can see why players don't bother. Steve Price would be the most suspended player in the comp these days if he played.
 
I think the focus in some cases has gone from genuine kick pressure to just forcing the kick / stopping the run.

I also think little things like this are having an impact on the game just as much as set restarts. i.e. Kickers having more time means more accurate kicks to contests and more chance of getting the ball back.
Grab the kicker so there is one less bloke chasing the kick about as good as some teams go for

When things like that Josh Curran charge down the other week get called back and a penalty given you can see why players don't bother. Steve Price would be the most suspended player in the comp these days if he played.
I mean, he did invert that one poor ****s leg and probably ruin his career. Actions like his have helped lead to this over protection I imagine.
 
Last edited:
Grab he kicker so there is one less bloke chasing the kick about as good as some teams go for


I mean, he did invert that one poor ****s leg and probably ruin his career. Actions like his have helped lead to this over protection I imagine.
Oh definitely, the way he went about it needed to be stamped out of the game. That one from Curran shows the balance is all wrong, like blokes falling over and getting lightly clipped in the head 3 cm's from the ground getting a penalty is over the top.
 
blokes falling over and getting lightly clipped in the head 3 cm's from the ground getting a penalty is over the top.
It annoyed me that we got done for that, but when it happened to us it was incidental, even though the contact was after we took possession of the ball. I guess if you had to say one was a penalty and one wasn't you rule it that way, but I don't see why they weren't adjudicated the same.
If one was okay because the defenders actions started before possession was taken of the ball, I don't see why the other wasn't okay because the defenders actions started before a dude fell over himself.
 
It annoyed me that we got done for that, but when it happened to us it was incidental, even though the contact was after we took possession of the ball. I guess if you had to say one was a penalty and one wasn't you rule it that way, but I don't see why they weren't adjudicated the same.
If one was okay because the defenders actions started before possession was taken of the ball, I don't see why the other wasn't okay because the defenders actions started before a dude fell over himself.
Are you talking about when Kennedy was cleaning up the kick?
 
Are you talking about when Kennedy was cleaning up the kick?
Yeah, after he had the ball it was full shoulder to head. Very accidental, but so was it earlier when a bloke fell over into, I think it was Brit.
Is accidental unavoidable high contact a penalty or not?
 
Yeah, after he had the ball it was full shoulder to head. Very accidental, but so was it earlier when a bloke fell over into, I think it was Brit.
Is accidental unavoidable high contact a penalty or not?
Good point, I’d love the NRL to explain that
 
Yeah, after he had the ball it was full shoulder to head. Very accidental, but so was it earlier when a bloke fell over into, I think it was Brit.
Is accidental unavoidable high contact a penalty or not?

Yeah i said that in the match thread when it happened.

Under current interpretation of the rules it seems like the only time no duty of care exists is when your competing for a live ball on the ground
 
Best game he's had in 18months. Only the hopeless dragons but hopefully the origin experience has put a rocket up his ass.
 
Back
Top