Official Connor Tracey

apezza

Great White
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,225
Reaction score
1,964
I wonder of there is a stat for conversion of line breaks into tries. We seem to make a tonne of line breaks with the reward at the end.

Look at Broncos last night - 2 length of the field LB - both lead to tries (albeit they got some luck with the second one)
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
17,741
Reaction score
2,402
I wonder of there is a stat for conversion of line breaks into tries. We seem to make a tonne of line breaks with the reward at the end.

Look at Broncos last night - 2 length of the field LB - both lead to tries (albeit they got some luck with the second one)
****ed tries. We'd lead that stat.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,789
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Perth WA
I wonder of there is a stat for conversion of line breaks into tries. We seem to make a tonne of line breaks with the reward at the end.

Look at Broncos last night - 2 length of the field LB - both lead to tries (albeit they got some luck with the second one)
****ed tries. We'd lead that stat.
Well, this might shed some light on things….



The Sharks come up with some really bad endings​

There’s a lot to be said for the scramble from the Broncos, but plenty as well for the Sharks attack.
They’ve been by far the best at creating line breaks in the NRL this year, with 6.2 per game – Souths are next, on 5.6, and then it’s down to Parramatta on 5.2.

But when it comes to icing their opportunities, Cronulla drop down, with a major disparity between how many breaks they create and how many tries they score.
Indeed, they’re on 4.3 tries per game, with the Broncos on 4.1 despite creating 1.5 fewer breaks. Their efficiency is a real problem.
That was on full display tonight. On multiple occasions, the Sharks breached the Broncos’ line but couldn’t get the job done. Ronaldo Mulitalo was a major culprit, failing to get passes away cleanly when he could have done better.
It is, perhaps, harsh to criticise players who are so effective at getting into the clear for their inability to turn such opportunities into points. But in games against the best sides, efficiency is always going to matter.

Mulitalo also bombed a try by failing to catch a kick, and why it wasn’t the worst of the year – he’s dropped it over the line twice – it was the sort of thing that happens more often than it should to a player of his quality.
On the other side, Briton Nikora was giving Farnworth the runaround, but even when he beat the English centre, an arm came out for the ankle tap.
Advertisement
Nicho Hynes must despair. He put on four line break assists, but it was worth just one try assist. He buzzed around the football all night, recording above his usual numbers for possessions, but nothing came off. For his part, the final play options were less than perfect too.
It was a night to forget for the usually sharp Sharks attack. Fitzgibbon must now go back and work out why his side struggled so badly to turn their generally good attacking shapes into tangible rewards.
 
Last edited:

Tatus

Not-So-Great White
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
10,110
Reaction score
786
Location
South Coast
We also have the "best" attack in the comp. I wonder if there is a correlation between chancing our hand and it paying off. Does our output stay the same if we reel it in a bit?
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
17,741
Reaction score
2,402
We also have the "best" attack in the comp. I wonder if there is a correlation between chancing our hand and it paying off. Does our output stay the same if we reel it in a bit?
My shoe is on fire. My foot also hurts, kinda burning sensation. Related ya reckon?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,789
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Perth WA
We also have the "best" attack in the comp. I wonder if there is a correlation between chancing our hand and it paying off. Does our output stay the same if we reel it in a bit?
I don’t think it is a matter of us reeling it in a bit, but more that we need to convert more of those opportunities. The Broncos convert roughly the same with a significant difference in opportunities.

We created more than enough very good opportunities to win last night, but didn’t convert them
 
Last edited:

Tatus

Not-So-Great White
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
10,110
Reaction score
786
Location
South Coast
I don’t think it is a matter of us reeling it in a bit, but more that we need to convert more of those opportunities. The Broncos convert roughly the same with a significant difference in opportunities.

We created more than enough very good opportunities to win last night, but didn’t convert them
I just wonder if it we reel it in a bit It might give our opponents less of a chance. High risk = high reward. High risk = high turnover. High turnover = more opportunities for opponents.

Broncos didnt do a great deal with the ball, but played brilliantly off the back of our mistakes.

Are we doing ourselves any favours trying to blow these top teams off the park and then not being able to adjust when it doesn't pay off?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,789
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Perth WA
I just wonder if it we reel it in a bit It might give our opponents less of a chance. High risk = high reward. High risk = high turnover. High turnover = more opportunities for opponents.

Broncos didnt do a great deal with the ball, but played brilliantly off the back of our mistakes.

Are we doing ourselves any favours trying to blow these top teams off the park and then not being able to adjust when it doesn't pay off?
I get it, but a lot of our line breaks are from our sweeping plays and we break through out wide. So not sure that is leading to our mistakes, but yes, it’s the stupid ”not there” offloads or just simple handling errors and stupid penalties we need to reel in that lets teams back into games or beat us IMHO.

We can keep our expansive attacking plays and still create the 6.2 line breaks without turning over the ball if we can stop the stupid, simple (fixable) errors.
 

apezza

Great White
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,225
Reaction score
1,964
I get it, but a lot of our line breaks are from our sweeping plays and we break through out wide. So not sure that is leading to our mistakes, but yes, it’s the stupid ”not there” offloads or just simple handling errors and stupid penalties we need to reel in that lets teams back into games or beat us IMHO.

We can keep our expansive attacking plays and still create the 6.2 line breaks without turning over the ball if we can stop the stupid, simple (fixable) errors.
Unfortunately we haven't been able to stop our stupid, simple (fixable) errors for a few seasons now.

That means we either need to persist with the same team and hope they miraculously dissapear or make a few changes.
 

Sparkles

Jaws
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
12,037
Reaction score
2,767
We also have the "best" attack in the comp. I wonder if there is a correlation between chancing our hand and it paying off. Does our output stay the same if we reel it in a bit?
I think it was last week's Sharkcast where Shanazi(?) We've through our stats. It definitely supported the risk/reward idea
 

ben

Great White
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
154
Location
lismore
Tracey’s stats are off the charts for yesterday against one of the favourites. 200+ metres, 2 tries, 15 tackle breaks, try assist (I think).
 

Gumby

Jaws
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
15,184
Reaction score
2,201
Location
Melbourne
Needs a spot in our 17. Simple. Said it for weeks now. His energy is contagious. We don’t have that from anyone atm in our team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SF
Top