We weren't that Impressive

First Grader
We weren't that Impressive

Was it only me or were Souths just horrible. We did some good things but generally the Harbord Under 16 B team would have beaten them today.

They gave so many silly penalties away, dropped ball and made schoolboy errors.

We were okay in patches but there seemed a lack of intensity and some very silly errors made where it almost looked as if we wanted them to make a game of it.

I was alarmed by the ease they made breaks at the edge of the rucks at times - our concentration seem ordinary - though it was good in our own quarter!

To challenge the top teams we will have to be a lot better.
 
Reserve Grader
We weren't that Impressive

I think its a Case of sometimes you only play to the quality of your opposition
 
Reserve Grader
We weren't that Impressive

I agree CW, we were soft up the middle in huge chunks of that first half, it seemed like they were carving us up. Luckily, the scramble and goaline defense were solid.
<span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Mon Apr 25 2005, 12:30AM ]</span>
 
Reserve Grader
We weren't that Impressive

Ruck defence will have to be alot better if we want to return successful from Brisvegas.
 

ads

Bencher
We weren't that Impressive

Its a good thought that we can still win like that whilst being not too impresive!
 
Member
We weren't that Impressive

The reason why our ruck defence was not as good as previous games was the absence of Ben Kennedy. Not only for his workrate but for his ability to read the play and organise the defence around him. It's good to be able to rest him and win, but Souths were ****e.

Does the hooking position bother anybody else? It's one of the most important positions but we don't have anybody that has claimed it and we rotate three players depending on the opposition. The attack starts to get disjointed, (a prop at dummy half is not good), and Dunley seems to appoint himself as the playmaker when he comes on. A couple of times yesterday Monaghan wanted it but Dunley went himself the other way.
 
First Grader
We weren't that Impressive

You can only play as well as the opposition lets you.

Manly are just "too good"
 
Moderator
Staff member
We weren't that Impressive

I agree CW. Have kept my thoughts to myself at the other place.

A team with more finishing ability,like Brisbane for example,and 16-0 today would have probably been a 16-6 deficit
 
Winging it
Staff member
We weren't that Impressive

Gee CW, you seemed to have dropped all your depression pills for the month in one evening :p

There were definitely signs of weakness on the fringes and having a dedicated lock makes a difference. No doubt that BK has been instrumental for us. A team like Brisbane or Storm in a hot mood would have made us pay.

A lot of the guys would have been thinking about the game on Friday, whether they will admit it or not. Two tries in 6 minutes and it all seemed too easy so i am sure the intensity started to slip. All the same I thought it was a very very good performance and the real test will be the Brisbane game.
 
First Grader
We weren't that Impressive

Not being negative - trying to be realistic. Souths were pretty awful and Six and others are right that we probably played to the level of our opposition to some extent.

You can't do more than flog the opposition but I thought we coasted for some of the game. Beaver' attempted pass that gifted them a try and the lack of urgency when McDougall scored are examples of this.

Happy for the win and I enjoyed the flogging (Should have been 50) but I won't get carried away at this stage of the season.
 
Bencher
We weren't that Impressive

well our defence was shaky in the first half. After 3 or so carve ups our defence was back to normal i think.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
24 21 3 499 44
24 21 3 390 44
24 20 4 322 42
24 16 8 252 34
24 16 8 141 34
24 15 9 109 32
24 12 12 -143 26
24 10 14 -3 22
24 10 14 -36 22
24 10 14 -97 22
24 8 16 -142 18
24 8 16 -171 18
24 8 16 -214 18
24 7 17 -249 16
24 7 17 -288 16
24 3 21 -370 8
Top Bottom