: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:43 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

I thought the Bradford pack did well for about 20 minutes after Hull went 12-0 up. At that point it looked like they may have taken the ascendancy and Newton had his best spell but Hull fought back. One thing that I noticed was that the Bulls seemed totally knackered after about 30 minutes and in the last quarter. Is fitness an issue ? Over the whole game Hull's pack was the better in my opinion.

They seemed ok to me. We seemed to be better, quicker in the last 10. It looks to me like we are knackered for the first 60 minutes!

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:47 pm  

debaser wrote:

They seemed ok to me. We seemed to be better, quicker in the last 10. It looks to me like we are knackered for the first 60 minutes!

We look fitter than last year when we had players with hands on knees after 60 minutes in most games.

Accounting for Lynch and Langley not being match fit I don't think we have to look too hard at fitness.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:05 pm  

Fair enough you've seen more of your team than me it was just something being commented on around us on the terraces.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:09 pm  

Mrs. Slocombe wrote:

We were woeful yesterday, and I'm not having a go at Hull (no really I'm not) but the scoreline does not show just how bad we were.

The problem with your post is you sound like someone who came expecting to see - maybe in some strange way wanting to see - a woeful show by the Bulls, and you've convinced yourself that it was. It wasn't. It was a keenly fought contest between us and a very good Hull team which isn't leading the league for nothing.

You then have to explain how the difference on the scoreboard is just the 2 tries made by flashes of brilliance by Thorman, which would have worked against any team, and the only way you can explain the scoreline is to pretend that Hull were fairly poor too, but "not as bad as us". It's a crazy way to watch games. We did plenty against hull, including some very good and well worked tries, and we had plenty of chances to score more.

Mrs. Slocombe wrote:

Hull deserved to win, but to only beat us by 12 points may flatter to deceive the Hull side.

In fact you could better argue that the score was fair, as a reflection of the full 80 minutes. I'd reckon most Hull fans would second that.

Mrs. Slocombe wrote:

McNamara made a statement at the fans forum that unfit or non achieving players would be dropped from the team and replaced with players hungry for a chance. Thats not happening is it? Give the youth a chance.

What, like bringing in James, Cook, Kopczak and now Crookes, and demoting Platt to the bench? No, can't see it happening.

Mrs. Slocombe wrote:

If they're injured, let them recover (Newton a case in point).

Well we would, except that our interchange hooker sadly has a broken leg. Credit to the injured Newton for putting his hand up.

Mrs. Slocombe wrote:

Also can we please bring in an under 16 coach to show the team, ball handling skills and how to pass a ball into the bread basket.

I know it looks very poor at times, but seriously you don't actually seriously believe, however badly at times it looks, that U16 passing skills are what's needed? I mean, be sensible.

I'd say that some confidence would be top of my list, and despite losing we did see a lot of good stuff as well as some infuriating stuff vs. Hull, and above all to somehow solve our 2009 halfback problem, which is the scrum half Jeffries trying to play stand off (and to his credit slowly improving; the absence of the much-maligned but now sorely-missed Iestyn Harris, and a very unusual and steep dip in form of Deacon.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:34 pm  

If you look at the stats on Super League, the Bulls have the worst amount of meters made of any super league side so far this year. Actually nearly half of Wigan have done.

Hardly an argument for a good pack.

Excepted you have played one less game though.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:38 pm  

debaser wrote:

Our game plan these days is five drives and then a kick to the opposition full back.

You need a Plan B.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm  

DISA wrote:

If you look at the stats on Super League, the Bulls have the worst amount of meters made of any super league side so far this year. Actually nearly half of Wigan have done.

Hardly an argument for a good pack.

Excepted you have played one less game though.

As it was Wigan who overran us, it's hardly rocket science that their stats after so few other games are much better than ours.

Your point that we've played 25% less games than the other teams does make the rest of your post, well, pointless.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:51 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:?
As it was Wigan who overran us, it's hardly rocket science that their stats after so few other games are much better than ours.

Your point that we've played 25% less games than the other teams does make the rest of your post, well, pointless.

Not really. Because if you assume you will make the same average you have made currently and add this on, you will still be only 9th in the meters gained department. Again hardly a reflection of the forwards laying a good platform.

edit.... sorry that should have said 12th. Harlequins would go up to 9th.

Whats your excuse this time?

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:04 pm  

DISA wrote:

Not really. Because if you assume you will make the same average you have made currently and add this on, you will still be only 9th in the meters gained department. Again hardly a reflection of the forwards laying a good platform.

edit.... sorry that should have said 12th. Harlequins would go up to 9th.

Whats your excuse this time?

Excuse? What has any of this got to do with "excuses"?

The position we are in at the moment is not great. But that has little to do with the pack. But anyway, my knowledge of how the pack is playing is based on watching it play, and you trying to "disprove" this by weirdly trying to draw some overstretched "conclusions" from some random statistic is actually endearingly bonkers. Thanks for giving me a chuckle.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:05 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:lol:
Excuse? What has any of this got to do with "excuses"?

The position we are in at the moment is not great. But that has little to do with the pack. But anyway, my knowledge of how the pack is playing is based on watching it play, and you trying to "disprove" this by weirdly trying to draw some overstretched "conclusions" from some random statistic is actually endearingly bonkers. Thanks for giving me a chuckle.

Well said mate