Can our forwards back up during the semis??

[doc]

I don't know. We were completely outmuscled.

We lift for the big games but can we do it back to back to back in the finals?

 

[Technical Coach]

Only if we play at the SFS, our best performances are saved for that ground but in general I have serious reservations about our forwards.

 

[BOZO]

Fkn Oath !!! We might not have the size but we are tough and resilient .

 

[Top End Eagle]

Yes their names are glen Stewart and Anthony watmough. You might have noticed them over the past couple of years. I think they show potential.

 

[dowdz]

Why do the forwards always get the blame? In the close games we loss we have had some poor 5th tackle options from our play makers. Yet, they don't cop the same treatment.

 

[Garts]

I don't know. We were completely outmuscled.

We lift for the big games but can we do it back to back to back in the finals?

I think you may have answered your own question. I think Semis may be big games.

 

[NYEagle]

Was there something you saw tonight that I didn't?.

Just in case you didn't notice:

(1) Watmough, G. Stewart watching from the stands.

(2) Our X-Factor Cherry not playing, Tafua not playing.

(3) A horrible referee performance

And Manly were still 16-16 with a few minutes to go.

Playing the bulldogs is like playing against turtles in mud. They wrestle and spoil all day but our forwards matched them and with even two of those blokes in the stands being on the field we canter in.

NY(pissed)Eagle

 

[doc]

we were making about 40 metre gains on our set, the dogs were making 60m. i don't know how we got so close

 

[EagleFromMay1967]

at times there appears to be a lack of size - at other times, it isnt a problem. I think we just need One really big front rower. A Kasiano, a JWH, a Tamou. We were certainly outsized tonite, and bringing back Choc and Gift, would only improve things a little in this area.

We always have trouble with the Dogs @ ANZ. Dasler knows too much about us.

 

[HappilyManly]

Yes!!!!!

The forwards shouldn't have to do some much work on their own tryline.
The halves have to kick for better field positions

 

[doc]

I don't know. We were completely outmuscled.

We lift for the big games but can we do it back to back to back in the finals?

I think you may have answered your own question. I think Semis may be big games.

i'm referring to back to back big games versus one offs. When we beat the Roosters at the SFS we couldn't back up the next week against the Tigers. We beat the Roosters again and couldn't back up against the dogs.

 

[Fluffy]

Forwards are no worries but without DCE we seem directionless in our sets

 

[Technical Coach]

Forwards are no worries but without DCE we seem directionless in our sets

The game would have been the same with or without DCE tonight the only difference being we might have scored enough points to win with both halves on the ground.

DCE did not do much last week against the Roosters--- Foran and Brett were the difference.

Out muscled out enthused and lacking intensity tonight plain and simple nothing to do with missing a half back or direction.

 

[Fluffy]

Disagree, the ball would have gone to the right player more often. Too many times we went to a small players early in the ruck who got dominated and left us on the back foot for the rest of the set.

Halfbacks do more than kick and throw a good pass or 2 occasionally in attack

 

[6/71]

No one on that field tonight was up to scratch. It's wrong to simply call out the forwards.

---

Forwards are no worries but without DCE we seem directionless in our sets

The game would have been the same with or without DCE tonight the only difference being we might have scored enough points to win with both halves on the ground.

DCE did not do much last week against the Roosters--- Foran and Brett were the difference.

Out muscled out enthused and lacking intensity tonight plain and simple nothing to do with missing a half back or direction.

While I agree with your final point, it isn't just the job of the forwards to muscle and show enthusiasm. Where was Brett? Jamie? Skiv? Where was Foz taking control? We're were inside the attacking twenty with a few minutes left and we were rudderless. Is that on the forwards too?

Further, if the game is no different, how would we score more? I'm genuinely curious.

Your 'expert analysis' is so often very simplistic. You subscribe to a reductionist theory and pass it off as 'technical.' You do seem to love to kick a downed dog though and relish these moments to big up yourself. News flash, everyone of those duds out there tonight has achieved more than you have on a football field. I'm not even worried about your feelings because we all know your thoughts on mental health...

You sir, are a dud.

 

[Technical Coach]

Disagree, the ball would have gone to the right player more often. Too many times we went to a small players early in the ruck who got dominated and left us on the back foot for the rest of the set.

Halfbacks do more than kick and throw a good pass or 2 occasionally in attack

Problem is DCE is mostly playing right edge or off a second man play in many instances and not playing like an organising half back.

Foran at times is playing more half than DCE this year I think in some ways to cover for DCE injury and to play more central himself.

---

No one on that field tonight was up to scratch. It's wrong to simply call out the forwards.

---

Forwards are no worries but without DCE we seem directionless in our sets

The game would have been the same with or without DCE tonight the only difference being we might have scored enough points to win with both halves on the ground.

DCE did not do much last week against the Roosters--- Foran and Brett were the difference.

Out muscled out enthused and lacking intensity tonight plain and simple nothing to do with missing a half back or direction.

While I agree with your final point, it isn't just the job of the forwards to muscle and show enthusiasm. Where was Brett? Jamie? Skiv? Where was Foz taking control? We're were inside the attacking twenty with a few minutes left and we were rudderless. Is that on the forwards too?

Further, if the game is no different, how would we score more? I'm genuinely curious.

Your 'expert analysis' is so often very simplistic. You subscribe to a reductionist theory and pass it off as 'technical.' You do seem to love to kick a downed dog though and relish these moments to big up yourself. News flash, everyone of those duds out there tonight has achieved more than you have on a football field. I'm not even worried about your feelings because we all know your thoughts on mental health...

You sir, are a dud.

---

I post as much if not more after wins going against the grain of most posters so has nothing to do with upping myself after a loss.

A reductionist theory what the hell are you on, if you can't see we got out muscled tonight and out enthused both non "technical observations" then you buddy are the over complicated technical one.

Yes we could have been more clinical in the red zone at times but in saying that the Doggies wrestled well in every tackle and the refs did not clamp down on it allowing their forwards to put pressure on our options.

 

[RiverEagle]

Forwards are no worries but without DCE we seem directionless in our sets

The game would have been the same with or without DCE tonight the only difference being we might have scored enough points to win with both halves on the ground.

DCE did not do much last week against the Roosters--- Foran and Brett were the difference.

Out muscled out enthused and lacking intensity tonight plain and simple nothing to do with missing a half back or direction.

Well if DCE played and we scored more points and won the game... that's actually a very different game than what we saw, is it not?

FMD. That'll do me tonight.

 

[Masked Eagle]

Looked flat, and played with about half the intensity of last week. Not sure if we took it easy or it was just too hard to back up from the week before, or they were a little bit too pleased with themselves sitting on top of the ladder. You'd think the intensity levels shouldn't be a problem in the finals. We always seems to put one very flat performance as we run into the end of the year. Lets just hope that is it.

I said winning on friday night last round makes your weekends seem great. Complete 180 after tonight.

 

[MadMarcus]

We lost because our forwards were crap. We were only in the game because their back up halves were also crap. If Reynolds and/or Hodkinson played we would have lost by 20+. I know we had players out but our forwards didn't turn up tonight. The backs overplayed their hands because they knew they weren't going to get many opportunities so they were crap too. But at the end of the day we lost because their forwards smashed us. It was excruciating to watch.

 

[Snake]

I saw tonight coming from a mile away. Honestly, I am not the least bit surprised by the result.

The Dogs had everything to play for, having been embarrassed at Brookie earlier in the year. They were rank outsiders, and under no pressure coming into the game; I could smell an ambush a mile away, and after 10 minutes you could easily see a lack of intensity from our players.

The space for Kasiano to run towards the touch line, the arm grabbing, the lack of genuine line speed (in direct contrast to last week), and a general lethargic approach to the fundamentals, told the story. If we could have skipped out to a 12 nil lead things could have been very different, but when you give the underdog a sniff, it's very difficult to wrestle back any momentum.

We beat ourselves tonight. Canterbury came to play, but we never got off the bus. The fact that the Bulldogs were without their halves is the only thing that kept the scores close. A better team beats us by 20 tonight. I have no concerns that if we turn up next time, we will have a repeat of Round 13 and take care of the dogs.

If you watch the press conference, Toovey mentions that tonight was a lot like the Tigers match at Leichhardt; we were flat. I will also mention that it appeared to be one rule for us, and one rule for Canterbury concerning laying in ruck...geez that pissed me off tonight.