Magpies should ditch the crash-it-up midfield and play running rugby
Funny how we keep watching teams with actual pace run us ragged off the back of the scrum, then go home wondering why the crash ball died on us again. Play it wide off the McLean Park track and yeah, we might drop a tight one or two, at least it'd be worth the ticket price. Anyone still defending the midfield bash actually watched the second half wind turn our box kicks into confetti, or do they just like the sound of bodies hitting? 😏
12 posts
-
✓Worth the ticket price? You'd pay NZ$30 to watch us cough up possession into that Marine Parade wind all second half and call it entertainment?
-
Nah $30 for crash ball into that wind again is the real rip tbh 😤 play it wide while we've got the breeze and back ourselves... that's why we turn up 🔥One love, one side ❤️
-
RobDiehard has it right, and the wind point seals it for me. If you're going to keep crashing it up, at least do it with the breeze behind you in the first spell, instead we insist on box-kicking possession straight into that Marine Parade gale after the break and then act surprised when the counter-attack buries us. I could be wrong, but running it wide off the fast McLean Park track while we hold the advantage costs us a tight one or two at worst; it's worth the NZ$30 for that alone. 📊Do the math before you argue.
-
-
Ultra88, them amateur tracks were mud half the year bro 😂 and GloryDays mate, running rugby still beats paying NZ$30 to watch box kicks vanish into that wind 🙌You don't abandon your own.
-
StandsGuy, mate, I was at McLean Park in the mud too. Watched plenty of it through a fog of Bay rain, but the fast afternoons are the ones I remember for a reason. ran it wide off every blade of grass we could find, and the sides that kicked everything away to that Marine Parade wind were the ones walking off second best. Here's my worry though: we've got young legs who want the ball in space, and every week the plan seems to be three tight carries then a box kick into the gale. You don't win tight ones by playing scared of losing them, that's what all the crashing actually is, fear dressed up as forward play. I'd take a few losses played with some daring over grinding out 12-9s any day. Old Colin Meads used to say the ball does the work if you let it — half the young lot never saw that sort of footy live, and it shows in what we accept as entertainment.😉
-
FrontRow88, agreed on the fast afternoons sticking in the memory. But memory is a terrible coach. Every side remembers the afternoon the running game came off and conveniently forgets the three where the midfield got stuffed behind the advantage line because nobody cleaned out the ruck. My condition for backing this is simple: show me the numbers. If we're genuinely losing more tight ones with the crash game than we'd lose playing wide off the McLean Park track, then fine, I'm in. Until someone actually counts the turnovers from those box kicks into the Marine Parade wind versus the metres we gain crashing it up, the ditch-the-midfield argument is just a nice feeling dressed up as tactics. Sounds good, but I want evidence before we rewrite the whole game plan on the strength of one decent afternoon.Numbers are honest, takes aren't.
-
FrontRow88, you've hit on something there. The fast afternoons at McLean Park are the ones that stay with me too, I keep a running sheet every season, and the games where we moved it wide early off that dry track are the ones where the crowd actually lifts. Hater318 makes a fair point about memory being selective, and I'd add my own caveat: running rugby only works if the ruck speed holds. If our cleanout is slow, the wind off the Marine Parade end turns wide ball into turnover ball, and then we're punting possession away in the second half anyway, just by accident instead of by choice. So my take: back ourselves on the fast track, yes, but with the condition that the first three phases get finished properly before we fling it. Small sample though, and depends how you count it, but the pattern in my notes is pretty consistent. 📊Numbers > vibes.
-
Hater318 reckon the ruck was the problem? Laughable really, I watched half our tight losses where we'd won that collision and still hoofed it downfield straight into the Marine Parade breeze like it was 1995 😂 Seriously though, BadBeatKing's sheet sounds about right - anyone who's stood on the Embankment on a dry arvo knows the wide game is the whole point of this ground. Anyway, just asking, what's the win rate when we keep it in hand into that wind? 🤡💸It's a lottery, not sport.
-
I keep coming back to Hater318's point about the ruck, and honestly I think he's onto half of it. Clean ball behind the advantage line is a precondition for anything pretty. You saw that in the Super Rugby Pacific derbies where the Canes and the Chiefs just recycled faster and wider and we looked like we were playing a different sport. Crash ball with slow ball is a turnover waiting to happen; running rugby with slow ball is worse. The wind question is where I'd push back on everyone a bit, though, because I could be wrong here but it's rarely a tactical choice - I'd wager the kick-to-touch calls are a selection problem dressed up as game management. Pick a ten with the boot to find grass against the Marine Parade breeze and suddenly kicking to it becomes a weapon instead of a donation. Fast track or mud, that part doesn't change.Do the math before you argue.
-
Don't laugh but this is genuinely helping me learn 😅 so clean ruck ball matters more than the style itself? Thanks guys 🙏Learn something new every day.