1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

90%

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Matabele, Apr 28, 2007.

  1. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    For the first time this season we did not play with 110% commitment for 100% of the game. Take those two soft tries we conceded from scrums out of the equation and add the number of tries we butchered and we should have won the game in a canter. Lyon's two missed goals were kickabe too and that was the final difference.

    If anyone should cop the blame for that loss, it would surely have to be the captain?

    Very frustrating. We'll need our heads screwed on for next week given the Raiders have trounced the Panfers. With several backing up from a rep game we can't afford another 90% effort.
     
  2. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    i didnt like the option of the wingers/centers and even ballin giving it to the backrowers too often coming out of our 20. Both king and kite were there and ignored.
     
  3. Kiwi Eagle

    Kiwi Eagle Moderator Staff Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    14,488
    1,734
    Ratings:
    +2,425 / 31
    our set 1m out from our line in about the 3rd min set up the night, poor option taking.

    Ballin a long pass right across the front of the posts, cannon fodder for the defence, and if once wasnt enough identical play from Orford next up. We make 20m on our set and Bowen returns the kick to the 45.

    Orford made a big mistake last week, he shouldnt have said that he probably shouldnt be playing for another few weeks and was there to push his origin chances. After an effort like last night those sort of comments dont come off well, when a lack of fitness can be offered up for a poor game
     
  4. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    He butchered his Origin chances last night.
     
  5. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    I'll reserve my judgment until he plays City / Country. If he's picked.
     
  6. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    9,997
    516
    Ratings:
    +516 / 0
    Dreadful effort from all of the team. Poor options in attack and defense was not good. Running laterally just didn't do it for me. Does Choc have to give away penalties? Ballin missed a tackle, led to a try as did some other culprits. I warned about Clark. Good to see halden get a try. Missed opportunity to go 7 from 7.
     
  7. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    I told you so :naughty:
     
  8. The Wheel

    The Wheel Well-Known Member

    10,890
    805
    Ratings:
    +1,766 / 72
    I agree we played poorly and didn't deserve to win but there were some positives:

    - Cowboys would have beaten most sides in the NRL on that performance, so to get within 4 points was almost accpetable
    - Our attack seemd a lot better we made a lot of opportunities against there defence which was fired up
    - The effort probably ensured less players were picked for the rep games coming up
    - A loss we had to have, some of the players might have started reading the papers to much
    - Hopefully it will make us real desperate against the Raiders, I can cop a loss to the Cowboys away but not the Raiders
     
  9. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    only 2 tries out of 5 from kicks
     
  10. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    I notice that none of our props made over 100 metres? That would explain quite a bit too.
     
  11. The Wheel

    The Wheel Well-Known Member

    10,890
    805
    Ratings:
    +1,766 / 72
    We definetely didnt have much forward momentum on the weekend and we struggled to get out of our 20. Clarke was fairly liberal with his 10 metres when we were pinned on our tryline but that is no excuse.

    But our big fellas went missing that is for sure - however they were due for a below average game.
     
  12. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    i Disagree that they went missing, i spent a good part of the game yelling at the tv saying give to king/kite when we were in our 20m struggling to get out but what did ballin to, gave it to stewart/watmough or a centre/winger. Or he would run himself, then orford came in to hooker and made the same ****e descision to stay away from out bookends. It was like watching randall's blinds side runs - they wont expect it again theory.

    King made 90m from Hit ups only not other runs, kick returns etc, second in the match for both teams to watmough who made 100. So i wouldnt say he went missing on those stats either. Kite was down around 50m for hitups, well below par for him but again i feel its because we chose not to use the big fellas rather than them going missing.

    This is the downside of wingers and cetres trying to get more involved in the game an an inexpeerienced hooker not willing to back himself and do what he knows is right, rather give in to peer pressure and get those ****ers out of the way. On the third or the 4th. His looping pass accross the posts 10m out is the worse thing i have ever seen him do. He will be better next week for it though, thats for sure
     
  13. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    had a quick look at hit up metres

    King is averaging 101 so wasnt too far below par, kite is averaging 90 so was well below par, They were almost the same before that match.
     
  14. The Wheel

    The Wheel Well-Known Member

    10,890
    805
    Ratings:
    +1,766 / 72
    Considering they were down probably 40% on the performacnes over the first 6 rounds - I would say they went missing.

    Kite is the test front rower & vice captain and King is the City prop forward. Surely they wouldn't be getting overlooked by the players for hit ups in preference to wingers & centres??? Could it be more the case they were not in a position to take the hit ups ie having a bludge in the background, unlike previous games when they were putting their hands up/demanding the ball?
     
  15. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    Sometimes maybe but i saw them there and ready quite a few times when ballin either didnt push the centre/winger off the dummy half or passed it wide again. The passing it wide on multiple occasions says to me they had no chance unless they start playing really wide. I would struggle to think that kite was that much off his game.
     
  16. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    For once I have to say Fluffy is making a lot of sense.
     
  17. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    throw enough darts your bound to hit the bullseye eventually
     
  18. Ryan

    Ryan Well-Known Member

    14,912
    2,681
    Ratings:
    +6,114 / 287
    Nth QLD's smothering defence beat us. As soon as Kite / King - or like Fluffy said the centres / Wingers got the ball, they were being tackled. This meant Ballin had to rush his play, which also meant that as the forwards weren't going forward - Orford had little time. I shudder to think of what it would have been like if they had O'Donnell and Webb in their team.

    I hope that's a one off, and we aren't vulnerable to fast defensive lines.
     

Share This Page