Yes the stats (missed tackles, linebreaks conceded etc) indicated on paper that our defence wasn't too bad but as someone else said that is mainly due to our "passive" defence, where we wait for the attack to come to us instead of a punishing in your face defensive line at speed. As an example, the small, mobile aggressive forwards from the Dogs missed a heap of tackles and conceded a heap of linebreaks but conceded fewer points due to their aggressive line speed in defence, and of course won a hell of a lot more games.
The problem with our passive defence is that opposition usually made 50-60 metres per set where we made 30-40 metres per set. We were always defending attacking kicks, starting sets from our own line and putting in limp kicks from too far out. We quickly lost the battle for field position and in most games were under the pump as a result. I don't mind a few more missed tackles if we can control field position. In short, our defensive structure needs to change dramatically, and if that means punting Young, so be it.
The problem with our passive defence is that opposition usually made 50-60 metres per set where we made 30-40 metres per set. We were always defending attacking kicks, starting sets from our own line and putting in limp kicks from too far out. We quickly lost the battle for field position and in most games were under the pump as a result. I don't mind a few more missed tackles if we can control field position. In short, our defensive structure needs to change dramatically, and if that means punting Young, so be it.
