Matai Try photo evidence - it's a try!
- Thread starter weev
- Start date
-
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.
HappilyManly
Journey Man
Breaking News-
Manly prove the Newtonian Law of Motion and the existence of Gravitational Force
Manly prove the Newtonian Law of Motion and the existence of Gravitational Force
That match is finished, we wuz robbed, let's move on.
Meanwhile, spotted this on NRL site. True we haven't scored many tries against the top 3 - but we seem to frequently go within centimetres of scoring (or score but have it disallowed, like Matai's)
So ... is this really a problem ... if so, is it something @"Technical Coach" can fix?
Manly a level below
Manly are not at the level of South Sydney, the Sydney Roosters and Melbourne.
Despite six straight wins and a very competitive showing in a 22-10 defeat at the hands of the Rabbitohs on Friday night, the Sea Eagles’ inability to fire a shot against the top three teams in the premiership suggests they are at least a level off the top sides.
Geoff Toovey’s post-match tantrum did little to assuage concerns that Manly don’t have what it takes to go all the way. They were flying last year before disintegrating in the finals and they could be facing another meek finale to their 2013 campaign.
The Sea Eagles have tackled the top three teams on five occasions in 2013 for just a draw and four losses. Against the current top eight they are 4-6-1 while against bottom eight teams they are 9-1.
Manly have the cattle to beat up on bad teams but can’t run with the big dogs of the premiership. And it is their attack that has proven the concern, unable to break down the top defences. Manly have averaged just 9.6 points against the Bunnies, Chooks and Storm this year, not surpassing two tries in any match. It was the same tale on Friday, when they had much of the early possession and field position but couldn’t put it to their scoreboard advantage.
The problem for Manly is that their attack is very simple and somewhat predictable. What they do, they do exceptionally well, putting men in motion and running block plays better than any other team. But there is not a lot else to their attack. They do not have a lot of variety in their pack, particularly at prop, nor do they possess any great speed. They run a very structured, very vanilla attack and they do it very well. That works against poor teams. It doesn’t against the best.
Manly will likely be there at the preliminary finals stage of the season. Another inglorious end, however, would not surprise if Geoff Toovey does not expand their attack.
http://www.sportsfan.com.au/manly-are-a-level-below/tabid/91/newsid/110336/default.aspx
Meanwhile, spotted this on NRL site. True we haven't scored many tries against the top 3 - but we seem to frequently go within centimetres of scoring (or score but have it disallowed, like Matai's)
So ... is this really a problem ... if so, is it something @"Technical Coach" can fix?
Manly a level below
Manly are not at the level of South Sydney, the Sydney Roosters and Melbourne.
Despite six straight wins and a very competitive showing in a 22-10 defeat at the hands of the Rabbitohs on Friday night, the Sea Eagles’ inability to fire a shot against the top three teams in the premiership suggests they are at least a level off the top sides.
Geoff Toovey’s post-match tantrum did little to assuage concerns that Manly don’t have what it takes to go all the way. They were flying last year before disintegrating in the finals and they could be facing another meek finale to their 2013 campaign.
The Sea Eagles have tackled the top three teams on five occasions in 2013 for just a draw and four losses. Against the current top eight they are 4-6-1 while against bottom eight teams they are 9-1.
Manly have the cattle to beat up on bad teams but can’t run with the big dogs of the premiership. And it is their attack that has proven the concern, unable to break down the top defences. Manly have averaged just 9.6 points against the Bunnies, Chooks and Storm this year, not surpassing two tries in any match. It was the same tale on Friday, when they had much of the early possession and field position but couldn’t put it to their scoreboard advantage.
The problem for Manly is that their attack is very simple and somewhat predictable. What they do, they do exceptionally well, putting men in motion and running block plays better than any other team. But there is not a lot else to their attack. They do not have a lot of variety in their pack, particularly at prop, nor do they possess any great speed. They run a very structured, very vanilla attack and they do it very well. That works against poor teams. It doesn’t against the best.
Manly will likely be there at the preliminary finals stage of the season. Another inglorious end, however, would not surprise if Geoff Toovey does not expand their attack.
http://www.sportsfan.com.au/manly-are-a-level-below/tabid/91/newsid/110336/default.aspx
Ron E. Gibbs
First Grader
joeboy said:
The 'Nine' logo would suggest it's from the broadcast
I was SURE I clearly saw the ball grounded over the line when they played the replay (over and over and over), so this doesn't surprise me. Everyone on the field knew it was a try; it just wasn't awarded.
So yeah, we wuz robbed but it's over and done with so onward and upwards. The only problem being that, unlike other teams who complain about the refs, the refs seem to take it personally when we do it and instead of overcompensating they go out of their way to be even more anti-Manly than they otherwise would be. Bugger.
Technical Coach
Bencher
weev said:What is holding this ball up, except a shadow...?
Pic if anything shows the ball not hitting the ground and up against his arm, convinces me more it was not a try.
manlyfan76
There is no A.I. Just better computers
Benefit of the doubt for me.
Do they still have BOD?
Do they still have BOD?
Technical Coach
Bencher
SeaEagleRock8 said:
A better structured attack will create more clear cut chances, not those ooh ahhh ones we create being held up or forced over the sidelines.
People here can't say I did not warn them, we need more variations and straight strength plays up the middle, shorter passes, playing off the inside hip more, threatening through the middle with our halves and more forward hole runners on the right also.
That is just for starters, we can still win this premiership but damn we are making it harder than it should be.
We lack size depth also but I still think for this year we can work around this issue with the cattle we have left, but it does not make it any easier.
HappilyManly
Journey Man
dowdz said:
Lets not forget Wolfie and Killer also broke their tryline
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Unfortunately I think that is a pretty accurate article on how we are looking this year. Not that I hold Tunks in much esteem but Tunks was saying on Talkin Sport that he just feels there's something missing from Manly that puts us behind the other 3 teams. I don't really feel we are good enough to win it this year. I really think the loss of Joe and Kingy will be too much to overcome. That size and penetration off the bench is that little x factor we are missing and will need to challenge for the premiership. Now there has to be a big question mark on Chocs fitness. We desperately need a fit and on fire Tom Symonds back but I just think our bench is our downfall without those big 2 boppers.
Jatz Crackers
First Grader
So your really saying we are going to sh!t it in Mick ?
Jatz Crackers
First Grader
Ta. Just checking.
Snake&TurboTomofBrookie
Reserve Grader
weev said:What is holding this ball up, except a shadow...?
Bring back the 'Benefit of the Doubt' ruling.
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 59 | 12 |
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 12 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 53 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 10 |
|
7 | 4 | 2 | 25 | 9 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 40 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 24 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -8 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -18 | 8 |
|
7 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 7 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | -41 | 6 |
|
7 | 2 | 5 | -29 | 4 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 4 |
|
6 | 0 | 6 | -90 | 2 |
