PopTart wrote:
That's fair. I'll explain what I mean.
The tactics on the whole worked.
We played platers who could go the distance as our bigger players were dominated last year.
We took the option for two when we had opportunities
Our defense has improved tremendously, especially on the line.
Two players signed to plug gaps played well.
Playing Max at 6 worked as best it could but was clearly the best option.
The players played in a positive way and Westerman said great things about the coaching team.
The things that went wrong was 2 missed kicks, a wild pass under the posts and decision out of our control.
So I think it showed lots of things the coaching team got right but unfortunately it still didn't quite go our way.
The people still moaning about Chester are not necessarily wrong, but are so negative, they just repeat the same line no matter what happens.
I personally watched that game and came away disappointed but more positive than I was before.
It`s strange PT, because when I gave a detailed response to your previous post on this with lots of specifics on just how this loss was down to coaching (See page 5 of this thread) you didn`t want to know, you went into hiding hoping that if you close your eyes the actual facts might go away during the week and yet you come back with lists of generic points that seem to back your point up but really mean nothing what so ever.
To save you going back and looking, here’s the contents of the post, should you want to address any of the actual issues?
I just can`t get my head around this comment what so ever PT, you are either completely deluded or have zero clue on this what so ever, or maybe didn`t watch the game?
Whilst there were a couple of bad referee calls granted, The game last night for me was a classic chess match of coaching... There was a clear game plan from Leeds to play the basics, every man and his dog could see that. We started playing one man up into to the back of the ruck and they had a man pressing up every time with a man on the inside after the first set, we failed to change that tactic other than a couple runs from Westerman and Tanginoa then went straight back to it, it didn`t work, we got dominated every tackle, they won the ruck and won the field position, switching up every other play and running a couple of different lines may have helped us out a bit, hell maybe even throw some basic shift plays on.
When things got tough, the pressure ramped up and errors started creeping in for both sides, you could see the call sent down from Agar because they went back to basics once again, stopped forcing silly passes, put some depth in there line which they had lacked over the game, played with the first man and sometimes second man off as dummy runner and that`s all they needed to do to gain that advantage back again, other coaches will pick up a couple of swings in that game on the video tape and do exactly the same. Our answer to that should of been talked about all week, how we are resilient, how we adapt during a game, which set plays we go to, which structure we go to well it turns out PT we seemed to have nothing? Our answer was to throw some very silly wild passes, to pass the ball to Lyne to run around like a headless chicken hoping we could find some space - As much as that is players making some silly decisions, were is the structure? Where are the ideas? Where is the resilience? Where is the game plan?
I will give us some credit, I thought our scramble defence was good, but I thought Leeds chose the wrong option time after time on our line throughout.
People can talk about the last call, but we should not have been in that position to let 1 ref call influence the result.
On top of everything this morning I was told Jowitt was not to be offered a new deal for next year which I really hope isn`t true, he does a job wherever he is asked to play, not too sure what the lad does wrong but we would rather persist with picking the wrong option time after time.
