The Good, the Bad and the Ugly report - Rd 7

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

cf2 is back

Reserve Grader
 


After a crushing 30-0 victory on Monday night we were back at Brookie for the perfect opportunity to carry on our fortress form against the struggling Gold Coast. All we'd have to do is turn up to cement another vital 2 points. Right?


Read the full article
 
Good of you to review it - I still haven't been able to watch the second half:s

Run forward - pass sidewise - in both directions seems such a simple direction for the Team to follow :exclamation:

But - there is always the next game - Let's Go Manly :D
 
I want to blame the defeat on our five-day turnaround, but how does this gell with the fact that our Toyota Cup team had their first win on Saturday after the same five-day turnaround?
 
a 5 day turn around does not account for the woeful handling errors. It was pure and simple a matter of possession that mainly cost us the game, this was a direct result of our inability to hold the ball. I think we only managed to complete something like 50% of our sets in the entire game
 
Nailed it cf2. I can't add anything except to agree 1000%, that attitude is so crucial. Plus, it's not really about the refs but I can't not say that the Idris stiff arm on Lyon should have been punished way more heavily. And Harrigan needs to tell Robinson and de la Heras to stop the on field love fest with all the in jokes etc that I could hear through sports ears. They are there to keep the teams 10 metres apart, stop players laying all over the tackled player and punish dangerous and illegal plays. They did all of that incredibly badly.
 
Daniel said:
a 5 day turn around does not account for the woeful handling errors. It was pure and simple a matter of possession that mainly cost us the game, this was a direct result of our inability to hold the ball. I think we only managed to complete something like 50% of our sets in the entire game

I agree. I'm more than a little disappointed that Tooves used that as an excuse for the loss.

Whilst I agree the current playing schedule is not conducive to a level playing filed. There are better forums in which to raise this than immediately after a loss.
 
Frank said:
Daniel said:
a 5 day turn around does not account for the woeful handling errors. It was pure and simple a matter of possession that mainly cost us the game, this was a direct result of our inability to hold the ball. I think we only managed to complete something like 50% of our sets in the entire game

I agree. I'm more than a little disappointed that Tooves used that as an excuse for the loss.

Whilst I agree the current playing schedule is not conducive to a level playing filed. There are better forums in which to raise this than immediately after a loss.

At a professional elite level of sport and a game as tough as this one an extra 48 hours of recovery and training time will make an enormous difference especially when you consider after 7 rounds teams like Broncos,Storm Dogs have had an extra 7 days of recovery time. I'd like to see how well the Broncos would be going with our schedule as well as losing players like Hodges,Thaiday,Wallace,Parker for a couple of games.
 
Another excellent summary. My thoughts on the game reflect your report almost exactly Cf2. It seems I went through the exact same emotions as you watching that drivel too - including at one point thinking that we would start playing decent footy soon and come away with the win, with the start of the game becoming a mere slight whinge in your report before you go on to talk about how we turned it around!

I was shattered after the loss. It is the first time I can remember wanting to leave Brookie before full time. Even when we got lapped pre and post NE days (didn't go to any NE games) when we had a pretty poor side it was never as bad as that.

With the exception of two or three individuals, the team played like they had absolutely no interest in winning that game. What's worse is that the Titans were terrible, so there wasn't even any entertainment value. I said on Friday night that the Knights v Dragons game was boring as hell, but compared to our game the Knights v Dragons game was like skydiving while having a gunfight with James Bond, stealing his girl and having your way with her before you hit the ground.

I did stick it out until full time in the end, and moped around for a while before I came up with a theory. It started from thinking that the boys looked like they had just finished a training session and wanted to be in bed. Then it hit me - maybe they had just finished a training session? Maybe Tooves has been flogging them all week so they will be up for the Dogs game and as a result they simply had no petrol in the tank for the Titans?

You might think my theory is a bit far fetched, but it least it helped me get to sleep on Saturday night so I'm sticking with it...
 
While I'm not trying to deflect blame to the refs, as we would have lost no matter which way the calls went, I do feel there were some absolutely dud calls in that game as well. It started with the no try to the Titans in the 4th minute. Got that part wight but there was a double movement AND a dropped ball but somehow they managed to get the ball back to continue the set. Then the blatantly forward pass prior to their 3rd try. Not only forward but to a man in an offside position. Lastly the hit on Matai. Personally I have no issue with there being no penalty when a player falls into a stray arm as Matai did but just 2 tackles later a Titans player fell into a tackle and recieved a penalty for a high shot. Some consistancy please?
 
mickqld said:
Frank said:
Daniel said:
a 5 day turn around does not account for the woeful handling errors. It was pure and simple a matter of possession that mainly cost us the game, this was a direct result of our inability to hold the ball. I think we only managed to complete something like 50% of our sets in the entire game

I agree. I'm more than a little disappointed that Tooves used that as an excuse for the loss.

Whilst I agree the current playing schedule is not conducive to a level playing filed. There are better forums in which to raise this than immediately after a loss.

At a professional elite level of sport and a game as tough as this one an extra 48 hours of recovery and training time will make an enormous difference especially when you consider after 7 rounds teams like Broncos,Storm Dogs have had an extra 7 days of recovery time. I'd like to see how well the Broncos would be going with our schedule as well as losing players like Hodges,Thaiday,Wallace,Parker for a couple of games.

You will not get an argument from me on this one. However, a losing press conference is not the forum (imo) to complain about this. However true it may be it just looks like sour grapes. Toovey's statement that "he didn't see it coming" was much more appropriate.

If we are going to complain about a short turn around then we may as well do it before we play the game - not after we've lost.

firechild said:
While I'm not trying to deflect blame to the refs, as we would have lost no matter which way the calls went, I do feel there were some absolutely dud calls in that game as well. It started with the no try to the Titans in the 4th minute. Got that part wight but there was a double movement AND a dropped ball but somehow they managed to get the ball back to continue the set. Then the blatantly forward pass prior to their 3rd try. Not only forward but to a man in an offside position. Lastly the hit on Matai. Personally I have no issue with there being no penalty when a player falls into a stray arm as Matai did but just 2 tackles later a Titans player fell into a tackle and recieved a penalty for a high shot. Some consistancy please?

There was no double movement. It can only be called a double movement if he had actually placed the ball on, or over, the try line. That's why the ref made him play the ball again and actually made the player come back closer to the try line where the tackle was originally effected.

The two forward passes, however, were a joke.
 
Also the high shot never seems to be called when it is on the back of the head
 
Frank said:
There was no double movement. It can only be called a double movement if he had actually placed the ball on, or over, the try line. That's why the ref made him play the ball again and actually made the player come back closer to the try line where the tackle was originally effected.

The two forward passes, however, were a joke.

There may not have been a double movement, it just appeared that way on tv. However, if there was no double movement, he did absolutely drop the ball.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom