News Barrett’s viral one-word reply has the NRL talking

[Raysie]

I thought it was a pretty poor response to a long winded question.

If I were Barrett I'd have used lack of possession as the reason to the example brought up by the questioner. We legit just had no good ball at all, whereas previous weeks even with lack of points we'd had much more opportunity with ball in hand.

 

[billy beane]

“Trent, I was just looking it up there: Kyle touched the ball 21 times in that match — Wakeham averaged 29 and Averillo 33,”

That is meaningless without context, for example;
In Round 5 there were 162 passes and Flanagan touched the ball 21 times = 18% (Bulldogs 40% possession)
In Round 4 there were 205 passes and Wakeham touched the ball 29 times = 14% Bulldogs 48% possession)
In Round 2 there were 294 passes and Averillo touched the ball 29 times = 11% (Bulldogs 60% possession)

In fact, placing it in the context of possession, Flanagan touched the ball a higher % of the time than both Wakeham and Averillo.

Drawing a conclusion and/or asking a question based on 1 statistic is naïve in the extreme.


Always a Bulldog

A ridiculous question as Trent had already spoken at length about our lack of good ball.

Obviously Flanno was going to have less touches.

My reaction to the question was .... Fark off moron.

 

[Marki]

Wow

Mike Meehan has struck back with a hit piece on Kyle Flanagan and it’s a pretty good one:

Trent Barrett's one word answer that sums up the problem at NRL's biggest underachievers

Trent Barrett gave a curt answer to a question at the end of the Bulldogs' press conference after their loss to the Panthers. But should he pay it more mind?

www.theroar.com.au

Barrett has some explaining to do.

Wow.
That's an awsome and detailed breakdown of our gamestyle. We'll done Mike.

Over to you Barrett to counter that.
Good luck. If you haven't been able to do it in 1.5years, you have no hope.

 

[Marki]

Its mainly Jackson and his inability to ball play. He can’t keep persisting with him in that role.

The perfect example was that Dufty play. Yes Dufty dogged it but Jacko should have held the pass. The good ball playing locks have 2 ideas when they get the ball. Run or pass. That play clearly shows Jacko has his mind made up before he even gets the ball. He puts no doubt whatever in the defences minds. They can see what he is doing a mile away.

I agree.
If Dufty dogged it with a gap between defenders, I can understand Jacko having shits. But the play was not on. It probably broke down because JMK was in the vicinity and the defence closed the gap anyway. Jacko should have seen this and halted the move.
I felt it was very rich of him to have a go at Dufty for pulling out.

 

[Caveman]

Baz should answer one worders for the rest of the year just to get under the journos' skinn

 

[GTOWN]

If the idiot wants to ask a question, backed up by stats… why doesn’t he ask why we have such a poor record when reffed by Sutton? and throw some win loss ratios out there.. come on media

 

[GrogDog]

If Tbaz is who he says he is then he should have been all over the answer. Just made himself look like a petulant git at the end of the day. Probably caught off guard from the usual dribble questions. Either way, not a professional response at all and doesn't help him.

 

[Marki]

“Trent, I was just looking it up there: Kyle touched the ball 21 times in that match — Wakeham averaged 29 and Averillo 33,”

That is meaningless without context, for example;
In Round 5 there were 162 passes and Flanagan touched the ball 21 times = 18% (Bulldogs 40% possession)
In Round 4 there were 205 passes and Wakeham touched the ball 29 times = 14% (Bulldogs 48% possession)
In Round 2 there were 294 passes and Averillo touched the ball 29 times = 11% (Bulldogs 60% possession)

In fact, placing it in the context of possession, Flanagan touched the ball a higher % of the time than both Wakeham and Averillo.

Drawing a conclusion and/or asking a question based on 1 statistic is naïve in the extreme.


Always a Bulldog

I don't think it was naive.
The journey provided additional stats from rounds 1 through to 5 in his follow up piece and pinpointed a glaring issue with our attack structures which simply cannot be understated.

Our forwards dominate our attack at the detriment of our playmakers.

Spin it whichever way you want. It's the truth and it hurts and im glad he posted it. I wouldn't be surprised if he is a Bulldogs fan.

Now that its out there, I hope Gus and Barrett take note and do something about it.

 

[GrogDog]

I don't think it was naive.
The journey provided additional stats from rounds 1 through to 5 in his follow up piece and pinpointed a glaring issue with our attack structures which simply cannot be understated.

Our forwards dominate our attack at the detriment of our playmakers.

Spin it whichever way you want. It's the truth and it hurts and im glad he posted it. I wouldn't be surprised if he is a Bulldogs fan.

Now that its out there, I hope Gus and Barrett take note and do something about it.

Yeah maybe Tbaz would've preferred, "Why do you let that slow fuk JJ handle the ball on tackle 4 so often while in attack 20 meters out from their line?"

 

[_G-Dog_]

Do these clowns ever stop whinging..

 

[Axel_75]

I don't think it was naive.
The journey provided additional stats from rounds 1 through to 5 in his follow up piece and pinpointed a glaring issue with our attack structures which simply cannot be understated.

Our forwards dominate our attack at the detriment of our playmakers.

Spin it whichever way you want. It's the truth and it hurts and im glad he posted it. I wouldn't be surprised if he is a Bulldogs fan.

Now that its out there, I hope Gus and Barrett take note and do something about it.

Go away, that's ridiculous. Getting tips from Journos, are you kidding?

Surely every club has a geek breaking down the stats and looking for ways to improve performance. This guy gives one stat (number of touches) without any context (possession, field position etc). It's a misleading stat on its own and a generalisation. If you are going to use stats it has to be deeper than this. Let's not call him a guru.

At the end of the day, he is a journalist, he's not a Dog's fan (was the article balanced, we're there any positives to take away, has he written any positive pieces on the dogs). No he is not naive, he is not a fan of the Dogs, he is a fan of the headline, the gotcha moment.

 

[Howie B]

I agree.
If Dufty dogged it with a gap between defenders, I can understand Jacko having shits. But the play was not on. It probably broke down because JMK was in the vicinity and the defence closed the gap anyway. Jacko should have seen this and halted the move.
I felt it was very rich of him to have a go at Dufty for pulling out.

Yep exactly. Dufty actually did the right thing by giving up on the play because it wasn’t on. If he takes that pass he gets smashed as soon as he catches it and probably drops it anyway.

It’s called digging into the line and engaging defenders. If the pass isn’t on then you hold the ball and take the hit yourself

 

[billy beane]

If Tbaz is who he says he is then he should have been all over the answer. Just made himself look like a petulant git at the end of the day. Probably caught off guard from the usual dribble questions. Either way, not a professional response at all and doesn't help him.

I liked his response.

 

[D.O.W.]

It’s was a long winded statement that only warranted a yes/no answer.
On the Bulldogs attack, it appears Barrett has resurrected Desball. Barrett’s problem is multiplexed; his forwards aren’t mobile & have limited ball playing ability. With the poor distribution from dummy half any attack would be compromised. Until this crucial aspect is addressed. don’t expect the attacking stats to improve.
Really disappointing that Barrett & his coaching staff at the backend of last season & during the preseason
1) failed to identify this issue
2) have switched around halves, centre/wing combinations, despite the fact they have been getting very limited & absolutely no quality ball.
JMK keeps being rewarded for mediocrity.

Your spot on, it does feel as though Des ball is returning with that inside ball to a forward and 4th tackle settler.

The good teams strategise how they can create overlaps through the art of deception and don’t waste 4 tackles in the opponent’s attacking zone only to create a single chance on the 5th to score - good teams use all 4 tackles attempting to cross the chalk and the 5th tackle option is focused on a repeat set.

He has at his disposal two of the fastest men in the game in JAC and Dufty, Dufty can also ball play which provides a 3rd option setting up attacking raids - Burton has no ceiling on his potential and they have forwards like TPJ that can break the line and Trent can’t figure out a way to generate points or create a plan to the teams strengths.

 

[Marki]

Go away, that's ridiculous. Getting tips from Journos, are you kidding?

Surely every club has a geek breaking down the stats and looking for ways to improve performance. This guy gives one stat (number of touches) without any context (possession, field position etc). It's a misleading stat on its own and a generalisation. If you are going to use stats it has to be deeper than this. Let's not call him a guru.

At the end of the day, he is a journalist, he's not a Dog's fan (was the article balanced, we're there any positives to take away, has he written any positive pieces on the dogs). No he is not naive, he is not a fan of the Dogs, he is a fan of the headline, the gotcha moment.

His context was comparing figures from all 5 rounds and comparing with other players in other teams and even with last year.
He brought up figures on average. He didn't take a snapshot and make a point.

It doesn't matter if he's a journalist, the Pope, or in a coma. He has hit the nail on the head and compared to the dribble that comes out of Barrett's mouth and judging from the way the team plays, I rate him higher than any geeks Barrett might employ coz its clear they aren't advising him with the right info.

 

[Marki]

Your spot on, it does feel as though Des ball is returning with that inside ball to a forward and 4th tackle settler.

The good teams strategise how they can create overlaps through the art of deception and don’t waste 4 tackles in the opponent’s attacking zone only to create a single chance on the 5th to score - good teams use all 4 tackles attempting to cross the chalk and the 5th tackle option is focused on a repeat set.

He has at his disposal two of the fastest men in the game in JAC and Dufty, Dufty can also ball play which provides a 3rd option setting up attacking raids - Burton has no ceiling on his potential and they have forwards like TPJ that can break the line and Trent can’t figure out a way to generate points or create a plan to the teams strengths.

You make some very good points regarding the speed men.

There is a smart play our team can put on but it takes balls to pull off.

It's basically the same setup you do for a golden point field goal but you do it at your own 40m line and you do it on tackle 2-5.

Hooker fires a pass from centre of field to a half standing deep, he runs back (yes back) about 10m as do he outside backs. He creates a staggered line of rushing defence and then runs sideways and fires a cut put pass to fast wingers who make a break with support play back inside.

Even if you don't pull it off 100%, it will keep the defence from rushing up for the rest of the game and so may have longer term benefits than the instantaneous time it is done.

 

[Gene Krupa]

when Hooper has the IQ of a moth...

The moths are really pissed off, that you have insulted their intelligence.

 

[Gene Krupa]

But it's ok for Bennett to give one liners or no answer at all.....another Dogs bullshit story.

Bennett has the runs on the board with Premierships. TB has jack shit.

 

[B-Train]

The moths are really pissed off, that you have insulted their intelligence.

It was a mothist slur and I apologise to the entire moth community for comparing their IQ to James Hooper.. Moths are clearly smarter..

 

[Gene Krupa]

.Neither Baz or JJ have earnt the right to smirk with the results we've had so far.

JJ looked like he had a lobotomy.