: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:03 pm  

jonh wrote:

Gb under Noble were the same, as were Bradford towards the end of his time there.

Coincidence?

LOL so are you saying that Tony Smith's team looked better than Nobles? GB at least put up some kind of fight against the Aussies with Noble as coach and as for Bradford looking flat well Noble left them as world champions so that blows that theory out of the water.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:06 pm  

Charlie Seeling wrote:

You complain if I post as regards you and yet you are here again.

I would be interested to know who gave Cruncher my IP addresses also. Invasion of privacy?

Ah good. So you got that message before it was removed.

This childishness is over as far as I'm concerned. It's up to you whether you want to start it up again.

Stick to your rugby assessments and lay off the childish personal stuff, and we'll all be a lot happier.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:06 pm  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

Agree with all this, but what is the reason for the obvious "flatness" in the team? Their body language was terrible yesterday, plodding around everywhere with no urgency. Could it be the way they are being coached that is getting them down?

Theres no excuse for the flatness of the team, i think the players are to blame for that not the coaching. Certain players managed to look enthusiastic e.g. O'Carroll, Hansen, Tomkins to name 3. A large proportion of the others looked like they'd rather be somewhere else.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:07 pm  

There was a brief moment yesterday and one v Leigh where the players played entirely off the cuff and they were literally passing/drawing, offloading etc. Now you clearly cannot do that for 80 minues but it does show they actually have skill.

Noble talked about getting caught cold v Wakey. We got caught cold so many times it is untrue in 2007/2008 BUT we then had Trent to get us out of jail. It was lmost as if we will play the Noble way but when it gos pear shaped e will play it as we see it.

It's not really fair to Wakey but trent would have = an undeserved win for us yesterday.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:09 pm  

Nogga wrote:

I agree that Sam should be given a proper chance as there is absolutely no spark in our attack what so ever!!

However we had one of the best stand offs in the world here last season and our attack was still very very poor. I think Nobles coaching style is killing us more than just simply not having a decent 6 or giving Sam a go.

I agree with you.
With 5 drives and a kick ( unless within opposition's 20m line) it won't make any difference who we bring in.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:10 pm  

jonh wrote:

The only time we saw what Trent could do at his best was usually when the game plan went out of the window and we were playing catch up rugby, i feel sure had Trent been playing yesterday we would be talking about a garbage performance but a narrow win, i am affraid Noble has lost his major bit of paper to cover some significant cracks in his approach to the game losing TB.

Totally agree. Noble relies on barnstorming runs from Feka and Hock, with an offload off the back of it, or breaks from dummy half. If that fails it used to be the Trent Barrett factor.

Another thing i don't quite understand is how Noble says we will now be able to play a more expansive game this season. If you cant play an expansive game with Trent in the team, how the hell does losing him mean we will be more expansive!?!?

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:14 pm  

Nogga wrote:

Totally agree. Noble relies on barnstorming runs from Feka and Hock, with an offload off the back of it, or breaks from dummy half. If that fails it used to be the Trent Barrett factor.

Another thing i don't quite understand is how Noble says we will now be able to play a more expansive game this season. If you cant play an expansive game with Trent in the team, how the hell does losing him mean we will be more expansive!?!?

Very good posts by you and by Jon H

I do not think the players do not put the effort in but they are given a schoolboy RL game plan and it means they actually work harder than their opponents do by trying to knock down brick walls.

Jack Gibson coined a phrase "Coach Killer" well Brian Noble is a "Player killer" Would you want to play for Brian Noble. Winger in a Brian Noble team must tantamont to signing your own death warrant.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:17 pm  

Charlie Seeling wrote:

Very good posts by you and by Jon H

I do not think the players do not put the effort in but they are given a schoolboy RL game plan and it means they actually work harder than their opponents do by trying to knock down brick walls.

Jack Gibson coined a phrase "Coach Killer" well Brian Noble is a "Player killer" Would you want to play for Brian Noble. Winger in a Brian Noble team must tantamont to signing your own death warrant.

Yet Vanikolo and Vaikona scored shed loads of trys at Bradford.

People try to say Bradfords wingers played like extra props well thats not true as Hape and Vanikolo had a lethal partnership and scored some wonderful centre/wing partnership trys.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:21 pm  

Red Hot Jalapeno wrote:

Yet Vanikolo and Vaikona scored shed loads of trys at Bradford.

People try to say Bradfords wingers played like extra props well thats not true as Hape and Vanikolo had a lethal partnership and scored some wonderful centre/wing partnership trys.

Bradford played some great expansive rugby at times and regularly ran in loads and loads of points. People use the "boring rugby" soundbite as easily as the "it wasn't Nobles team". He left with them World Champions, I wonder who was responsible for that.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:22 pm  

AJ wrote:

He left with them World Champions, I wonder who was responsible for that.

Well obviously it was Matthew Elliot who coached them for the WCC game before he left God knows how many years ago!