: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:29 am  

Bulldozer wrote:

...but ultimately not getting the right result (week in week out!) has to have consequences

Ultimately, yes. Other than the Wigan debacle, we seem to be losing (or even winning...) by tiny margins. A slight shift one way on those margins and we'd be celebrating sitting near the top of the table now. But we are not, and obviously if things do not improve someone will ultimately have to be held accountable.

Someone said a while back that we seemed to have a competition with two "good" teams, ten "mediocre" teams and two "bad" teams (or similar).

That's the usual negativity talking, of course. But the underlying point he made needs further examination cos he's only a bit wrong.

IMO we currently have:

1. Two very good teams, who its hard to see past for honours.
2. Ten, probably eleven good teams, all of whom now - with the increased standards overall, salary cap and general levelling out of standards, can beat each other on the day and where its hard to rank.
3. One seemingly poor team.

We could have been near the top of group 2 not near the bottom with relatively modest performance improvements, so there must remain hope for the rest of the season.

The competition has become much more like the NRL now in terms of difference between top and bottom. Remember back to 1997, when we got beat by Auckland and the press had a field day as they were the bottom club in the NRL and we were top in SL? What the press was missing was that the gap in ability and performance between top and bottom in the NRL was far far narrower than in SL at the time.

I suggest many people are now making the same mistake looking within the SL competition?

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:36 am  

debaser wrote:

It is on report though isnt it? Will be interesting to see what they say....

It is on report because he had a head injury, same as baileys last week and burrows.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle, Deacs was creamed.

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:42 am  

tigersteve wrote:

It is on report because he had a head injury, same as baileys last week and burrows.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle, Deacs was creamed.

I guess we will see won't we.

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:55 am  

tigersteve wrote:

It is on report because he had a head injury, same as baileys last week and burrows.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle, Deacs was creamed.

It's always difficult to tell when watching from the stands but from where I was it looked like a terrible pass and a fair tackle. To be honest most tackles look high on Deacon because of his height and the way he does tend to dip into tackles.

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:57 am  

Adeybull wrote:

IMO we currently have:

1. Two very good teams, who its hard to see past for honours.
2. Ten, probably eleven good teams, all of whom now - with the increased standards overall, salary cap and general levelling out of standards, can beat each other on the day and where its hard to rank.
3. One seemingly poor team.

It's hard to see past Leeds & Saints for the GF. But I'm fairly optimistic Cas, Hudds, Wire, HKR or Wigan have a decent chance in the CC, given the draw. Even Bradford & Hull have plenty of decent players. One of those teams IS going to get to the final, recent history shows they usually get stuffed I recognise.

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:56 am  

Bulldozer wrote:

I agree with you Adeybull ... although unfortunately while I disagree with the points over performance argument from a personal point of view ... the coach's job security IS surely related to results and the Bulls performances may be OK but ultimately not getting the right result (week in week out!) has to have consequences

Very true, but if a coach is to be sacked it shouldnt be on the back of a performance such as yesterdays.

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:14 am  

Great game of Rugby League yesterday. Really enjoyed it in the sunshine and as a neutral interesting couple of things come to mind.

Firstly I think Bradford need to address this whole "10 minutes" of whatever it is. (Poor performing.) In the first 10 minutes against Hull a few weeks back Bradford conceeded I think twice pretty much straight from the kick off and. After that they we're pretty much matched with Hull and ended up losing by 12. That 10 minutes being the difference. Same against Cas. Only a different period of 10. I appreciate it doesnt take a coach to work this out but just thought i'd include it. Moving on...

I dont think you can blame Steve Mac for the loss. Infact I'll change that to you cant!!!His team out performed Cas for 70 minutes and whilst Yes they lost it in the last 10 how people can say things like "couldn't he have got a message out to slow the play the ball ect" is just plain ludicrous. Steve Mc will have been screaming for that to happen but these are proffesional players being paid proffesion wages. They should know to slow the play the ball down. They'll have been trying to slow the play of the ball down. 70 minutes aint good enough, sure! And if the Bulls continue to not perform for 10 minutes a match then that will be something for Steve Mc to coach out of them. But don't doubt every single one of those players will have been thinking the same thing, trying to do the basics. Castleford simply created the tries they needed, when they needed them....Although Bulls can take heart in their showing they also have to realise that performances alone dont get you to Old Trafford.

Moving on with with abit of constructive criticism for Steve Mc. I'd question the decision to bring Deacs back on. When he was off the bulls we're on top of things and they didn't seem to miss him much. (which in itself is worrying.) But when he came back on, he missed a kick and Castleford scored 18 points. Now I'm not blaming him for Bradford self destruction but Im saying as a coach why change whats working?There might have been other injuries or players out on their feet and I can accept that, this is all ifs and buts but for me to put an already underperforming Deacon (with the added worry of the head injury) back on when your team had built up a 16 point lead is a questionable decision. Only my thoughts tho and I appreciate im no coach.

I'll finish with my thoughts on the ref. Not Good. I thought he missed alot. As for his linesman also there was what seemed a ridiculous call where he said a ball had gone behing the marker on the try line when actually it didnt and should have resulted in a Bulls 40/20 and subsequent posession??? Beggared Belief that one.

Overall a lot of positives to take away, but alot of things to work on. Was good to see the Bulls fans out in good numbers and was also good to see Platt have a good game. Hopefully you wont be too far from getting your 1st win. Just hope it not on the 10th where I wont be as neutral as I was yesterday

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:59 am  

SDB wrote:

Firstly I think Bradford need to address this whole "10 minutes" of whatever it is. :D

It did seem that when we went 26-10 up that there was a change in our mentality. We became too preoccupied with wasting time rather than continuing too play the rugby that had got us into the position. As I have already said I dont think our defense deteriorated during that period, but we switched off on attack and struggled to switch back on once we'd gone behind. Not unlike when we lost to Wigan a couple of years ago.

[Pumpetypump]

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:24 am  

SDB wrote:

Hopefully you wont be too far from getting your 1st win.

Not too far away no. About minus one week.

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:33 pm  

Shaggoth wrote:

Not too far away no. About minus one week.

Good Point... Although thats the only Bulls match I haven't been to this year so I will rephrase to

"hopefully you won't be too far away from getting your first win, when I'm there!"