WiganWarriorsFans.com

Martin Taylor posted:

Various insults and derogatory comments including

Well done of a pointless exercise you muppet!

Flash posted:

Martin Taylor posted:

Flash posted:
OK and so to the reason for this thread. It has come about because of three things: The 2 penalties conceded by O'Loughlin on Friday and the subsequent comments by Paul Cullen; the obsession with his tackling technique on this board and the Paramatta game shown on Sky this Saturday morning.

I have considered Nathan Hindmarsh to be the best defender in world rugby for a couple of seasons now and this is a view held by many good judges and is also backed up by the statistics, chief of which was his recent NRL, and I think, world record number of tackles in a game which I believe was 68. So it was with some incredulity that on watching the game on Saturday that I was watching a near identical style and technique to that of O'Loughlin! I had never noticed this before, but he invariably goes high, wrapping one arm over the shoulder and very often coming into contact with the attackers face (I kid you not, check out the game for yourselves to see the evidence for yourselves). So how come one is widely regarded as the best in the world and the other is castigated as a 'head hunter', a 'liability' and as having 'a poor technique'?

Well the best answer I can give is to refer you to the aforementioned match. Wind it to 44 mins 35 seconds and sit back to watch two consecutive tackles that were both worse than either of the ones for which Lockers was penalised. The difference was that neither of them resulted in a penalty. Just two more tackles added to his (as usual impressive) tackle count.

Which brings me to the point of the thread. Cullen suggested that the game was going soft if the first O'Loughlin tackle was regarded as high and the commentry team were all of the opinion (and I agree) that the second wasn't even high anyway and was on the shoulder. Yet both were penalised. As I remember it the 'High Tackle' rule was meant to prevent injury to players and is not meant as a technical offence as is, say, the play the ball. I remember the phrase 'attacking the head' being used in the past to describe this offence, although I'm not sure if this was in the rulebook or merely common parlance. What I am sure of, however, is that neither of the tackles on Friday could in any way be described as dangerous, or liable to result in injury and simply would not have been given in the NRL.

I found it interesting that one poster (Martin Taylor) said that Lockers technique is 'very poor' and generally criticises him, then nominates Hindmarsh as one of his best defenders. I have no particular beef with this viewpoint other than to say that it could be indicative that Cullen is right, that the British game is indeed going soft.

Thoughts everyone?

What a crock of **** you talk Flash! You are still thick enough to base a good tackling technique around the numbers of tackles made in a match. If Danny Orr made one excellent tackle yet O'loughlin made 60 tackles it still does not mean the Lockers has the best technique. It simply means he has made more tackles. If Hindmarsh only made 5 tackles per game, he would still in my opinion have the best technique around! Don't be confused by quantity rather thyan quality! A more accurate test would be to look at tackles made against penalties conceded of each player! The fact is Lockers still swings high and could have been penalised far more for it on Friday, and one on one he still chooses to meet players high, rather than around the ankles. Well done of a pointless exercise you muppet!

You say Hindmarsh has the best technique and Locker's is poor. Go check out the Paramatta game. Check out Hindmarsh's technique. Check out the tackles illustrated at the times I give and then come back and tell me I'm wrong. This is not a comment regarding number of tackles, but technique. The styles of tackling are identical. If you disagree back it up with something other than your opinion. Incidently I wasn't saying that O'Loghlin had the best technique, or indeed that Hindmarsh did, just that they were similar.

You have completely missed the point of the post which is the suggestion that the reason the same tackling style results in penalties in one country and not another is the way the games are officiated.

As for your claim that Lockers could have been penalised for 5 more tackles on Friday; I still have the game on DVD so back your claim up by pointing them out and I'll be happy post a response to your claim.

By the way, personal insults say more about your intelligence than mine.

cpwigan posted:
Have to support Flash on this occasion. Danny Orr would be considered a poor defender professionally.

That does not mean he cannot tackle. We know he can tackle. However, Danny can only tackle players by going low. hereby, he gives opponens he opportunity to offload and hecan be bumped off which does happen v the very best runners.

Professionally and Bell/Foley even preach this to the young scholarship kids. The perfect tackle is the ball and all 1 v 1 tackle.

So, we are looking for somebody who can hit above the ball, around the shoulders, keeping their own head very tight to the opponent and then importantly winning the contact by putting the ball carrier on his back rather than his hands / knees (which danny often does)