: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:10 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

If Yeaman had passed to Briscoe we'd have won.
If Berrigan had passed to Thorman we might have got a point.
If Calderwood had stayed away from dummy half in the last set, likewise.
If Hall had taken the bomb or gathered the loose ball cleanly we'd have won.
If Briscoe had gathered Thorman's pass we'd have won.
If Dowes had tackled Westerman we'd have won.
If (Dowes again?) hadn't bought McGoldrick's dummy we'd have won.
If someone had actually ran to chase down Sherwin's drop we'd have got a point.
If one of several (any?) players could successfully pick out Calderwood with a pass we'd have won.

Of course people are entitled to opininons, but to pick out 2 people in a performance that was pretty obviously the worst of the season by several and littered with errors from multiple individuals is far from accurate in the opinion of many others it would appear. Or are they not entitled to opinions because theirs happen to disagree?

As youve highlighted there were probably about 20 instances in the game on Friday when we didnt do things well that added together lost us the game. We did well to be within 1 point the way we played. If all 20 things had gone right we'd have won convincingly. Thats just sport for you i guess!

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:14 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

As youve highlighted there were probably about 20 instances in the game on Friday when we didnt do things well that added together lost us the game. We did well to be within 1 point the way we played. If all 20 things had gone right we'd have won convincingly. Thats just sport for you i guess!

But you have got to look at the main reasons why we lost and not include the small reasons. The Yeaman pass for example wasn't at a crucial time in the game so for me it was a key factor in losing the game. Not saying I fully agree with the fact Agar and Tickle are just to blame. Personally I think Tickle should have kicked at least one of the kicks he missed, we should have took the two at one stage near the end of the game (Agars fault?). Also Thorman or Tickle should have been in place for the DG not Horne, and whoever scooted on the last tackle near the end of the game should be shot (Berrigan?). They were the key factors imo

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:17 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

As youve highlighted there were probably about 20 instances in the game on Friday when we didnt do things well that added together lost us the game. We did well to be within 1 point the way we played. If all 20 things had gone right we'd have won convincingly. Thats just sport for you i guess!

Exactly. If there's one glaring individual error in a narrow defeat, the loss can arguably be attributed to the one at fault. But in a game like Friday, when IMO almost all simply didn't turn up, too much goes on to single a few out.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:19 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

If Yeaman had passed to Briscoe we'd have won.
If Berrigan had passed to Thorman we might have got a point.
If Calderwood had stayed away from dummy half in the last set, likewise.
If Hall had taken the bomb or gathered the loose ball cleanly we'd have won.
If Briscoe had gathered Thorman's pass we'd have won.
If Dowes had tackled Westerman we'd have won.
If Tickle hadn't bought McGoldrick's dummy we'd have won. (Technically he didnt buy the dummy, Horne did, Tickle just didnt slide effectively)
If someone had actually ran to chase down Sherwin's drop we'd have got a point. (2 players did, radford and dowes, but unlike us, cas put people in the way which meant that it wasnt an easy chase they had to doge and weave which slowed them down, thus not allowing them to get to sherwin in time)
If one of several (any?) players could successfully pick out Calderwood with a pass we'd have won. (like g. horne could have done twice but kept hold and scored?? There was not an option of a pass to calders all night that he would have scored from, apart from the t.briscoe offload to him which he couldnt gather)

Of course people are entitled to opininons, but to pick out 2 people in a performance that was pretty obviously the worst of the season by several and littered with errors from multiple individuals is far from accurate in the opinion of many others it would appear. Or are they not entitled to opinions because theirs happen to disagree?

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:21 am  

The Key wrote:

The Yeaman pass for example wasn't at a crucial time in the game so for me it was a key factor in losing the game.

I disagree. I think at the stage it was it would have just given us enough impetus and hurt Castelford enough for us to go on and win.

The Key wrote:

Also Thorman or Tickle should have been in place for the DG not Horne

Debatable after the previous week.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:23 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

I disagree. I think at the stage it was it would have just given us enough impetus and hurt Castelford enough for us to go on and win.



Debatable after the previous week.

Plus, horne isnt too bad at them. Catalans at home a couple of years back springs to mind. He doesnt get the sweetest connection but is normally accurate

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:24 am  

Irregs #16 wrote:

2 players did, radford and dowes

Watch again, they pretty much jogged. Not that that's entirely their fault, they were out on their feet. It was the amount of work we've been expecting of them coming back to bite us, and there should have been a couple of our more mobile players helping them out as well.

Irregs #16 wrote:

There was not an option of a pass to calders all night that he would have scored from

I actually thought the early one straight into touch was a good chance, as well as the Briscoe one you mention.

I also remember him busting a gut to support the attack a few times only to not even be noticed/looked for.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:25 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

If R Horne/G Horne had tackled Westerman we'd have won.
If R Horne hadn't bought McGoldrick's dummy we'd have won.

Totally agree with your points but in fairness to Ewan Dowes see above

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:25 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

I disagree. I think at the stage it was it would have just given us enough impetus and hurt Castelford enough for us to go on and win.



Debatable after the previous week.

The reason why I didn't think it was at a crucial time in the game was because Castleford seemed to keep coming back at us all game, so if that had been a try then I think Cas would have still thought back. Whereas the other incidents may have been at a stage of the game where we could have killed them off. If Hornes attempt at a DG had gone over, that would have been a 7 point lead. I would say at that stage of the game, Cas would have changed the way they played to try and get the game back which we would have taken advantage of.
And I realise after Thormans attempts the week before at Bradford he didn't loom that good but I'm under the impression he is sually good at DG's?

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:26 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

Watch again, they pretty much jogged. Not that that's entirely their fault, they were out on their feet. It was the amount of work we've been expecting of them coming back to bite us, and there should have been a couple of our more mobile players helping them out as well.

What gets me about the set leading to there drop goal is that we should have known it was coming. Firstly they started to go wide the first couple of tackles. When they did that, i would have liked the middle group of defenders to shoot out of the line, to stop them getting central and keeping them out wide, thus reducing the chance of an "easy" attempt - kind of an opposite to the "umbrella" defence