WWW.RLFANS.COM :: View topic

Hangerman2 wrote:I have to say that having given the team and Watson a lot of stick this year, i was impressed by that performance. I didn't think this team had that attacking play in them, and although the acid test will be against saints and then Warrington in the cup, i can say the following:

1) We look so much better without Russell getting in the way and hoovering up good ball. Clune actually has decent pace, i would like to see him attack the line more as he is more than capable of it. You can see him growing in confidence now and it's making the whole team better
2) Marsters is a totally different player to last year. Last year he had no idea where the tryline was. You could see he was a strong runner from his backfield yards, but near the line he didn't seem capable. Now he looks like a real threat and regularly threatens the line.
3) Swift is absolute class, as good as Jerry but with a different skillset. I said at the start of the year i was excited by our wingers , i like Wallis as well, and feel our best backline is definitely the one we had out against Leeds. Please keep Bibby out of the team, he would not have scored the one Wallis did, as , like last week, he would have been too slow to make it into the corner
4) I still don't like our acting half options. In the first half we were being broken down the middle, and its because our mid defenders arent quick enough to close gaps. It also means we have very little running threat. I really don't see what Milner brings to this side, Golding isn't a Superleague standard hooker either.

We are a couple of players short of challenging for me, it's a shame we wasted money on Milner, Bibby, Livett and didn't go for one quality hooker. Wouldn't even have to be someone on top money, just someone with pace off the mark who can spot an opening.

Author:	Hangerman2 [ Thu Apr 25, 2024 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Substitutions
Saints make a change taking off an ineffective winger for Daryl Clark which turns the game for them. We have a centre on the bench and yet don't substitute off Bibby and let him squander 3 gilt edged attacking opportunities, 2 of which would have led to certain tries. Why?!?! Apart from this, we really competed well with Saints. What i felt we did best , especially in the first half was move the ball at the right times to expose their edges. Shame that Marsters was injured and Watson chose to replace him with Bibby(why!?!? Halsall has CLEARLY been better this year) or we would probably have won the game.

Author:	Murphy [ Fri Apr 26, 2024 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Substitutions
Yes I agree about Bibby, but we should expect more from an experienced player. Obviously squad depth has an impact. I thought Seb was fantastic again, and we have some excellent young forwards. Clune brings a lot to the team. I like the fact we are prepared to attack from deep. Also would rather accept interceptions than not being prepared to shift the ball.

Author:	no fear [ Fri Apr 26, 2024 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Substitutions
Hangerman2 wrote:I have to say that having given the team and Watson a lot of stick this year, i was impressed by that performance. I didn't think this team had that attacking play in them, and although the acid test will be against saints and then Warrington in the cup, i can say the following: 1) We look so much better without Russell getting in the way and hoovering up good ball. Clune actually has decent pace, i would like to see him attack the line more as he is more than capable of it. You can see him growing in confidence now and it's making the whole team better 2) Marsters is a totally different player to last year. Last year he had no idea where the tryline was. You could see he was a strong runner from his backfield yards, but near the line he didn't seem capable. Now he looks like a real threat and regularly threatens the line. 3) Swift is absolute class, as good as Jerry but with a different skillset. I said at the start of the year i was excited by our wingers , i like Wallis as well, and feel our best backline is definitely the one we had out against Leeds. Please keep Bibby out of the team, he would not have scored the one Wallis did, as , like last week, he would have been too slow to make it into the corner 4) I still don't like our acting half options. In the first half we were being broken down the middle, and its because our mid defenders arent quick enough to close gaps. It also means we have very little running threat. I really don't see what Milner brings to this side, Golding isn't a Superleague standard hooker either. We are a couple of players short of challenging for me, it's a shame we wasted money on Milner, Bibby, Livett and didn't go for one quality hooker. Wouldn't even have to be someone on top money, just someone with pace off the mark who can spot an opening. I'd meant to respond to this post prior to yesterday's match but was unable to do so. It's also unfortunate Watson didn't act upon it and take sufficient notice of the plea in your third point. As you say, and I'm jumping between comments here, what a shame Marsters was injured, and what a shame that Bibby instead of Halsall was his replacement. We too commented that had Halsall been on in the first half, he would have made much more of the opportunities presented to Bibby - granted it wouldn't have been too difficult, seen as he dropped the ball 3 or 4 times. And it seems a questionable decision to have him on the bench, particularly if we weren't really going to use him until ten minutes from time. There must be a good reason why another forward wasn't on the bench given that Leroy can cover across the three quarters in case of injury. LoveRL had an article on the top 5 packs in Super League. Subjective though it may be, Saints came out on top and we didn't make the top 5. Since before Watson, our pack's role seems to have been to contain the opposition rather than get on top of them. I recall when we first got back into Super League and had Gannon, Fleary, Bloem, Turner and then Roarty in the pack. We may not have been the best but those weren't players content with just holding the opposition. Roll on a few seasons and we had Kopczak, Griffin, Mason and Eorl in the front row, with the likes of O'Donnell and Chan in the back. Again, players who relished getting the better of their opposing pack. Hill and Murchie are clearly losses for us at present (and the three other second rowers currently unavailable) but I think we need to bolster our pack and have a bit more go forward in it if we are to make the next step up. The signing of Burgess is a real boon in that respect and I'd like to see another tough acquisition if possible. But as you mention, perhaps our biggest downfall is at hooker. A bit more oomph in the pack, more quality at 9 and, as you say, we should be in contention. ... because our backs look quality. The backline against Leeds, as you said, is probably our best. Again subjective, but SeriousAboutRL have deemed our left edge the best centre/wing partnership in the league (that's Swift with Marsters as opposed to Bibby). Esan has done a Leutele in starting very steady but is a standout this season and hopefully won't be out too long as he is a huge miss. The three quarters get through so much grunt work - I'd like to see our forwards give them a bit more support! - but are also capable of producing some wonderful attacking play. The spine is moving the ball with greater speed and direction with Connor, Lolohea and Clune in it. Still, Tui, as mentioned before, is rocks and diamonds, the former of which was highlighted by his intercept last night. And if Connor hadn't been remonstrating with the official, as genuine a complaint as it may have been, and had played to the whistle I think we'd have stopped their second try (though Golding ought to have tackled him). Clune seems to be growing in influence. And Russell appears to be heading to Wakefield, which I am not sure constitutes a great loss. Though ultimately thwarted, what a great performance in terms of effort and commitment last night, typified by Seb's determination to stop Blake from scoring in the corner. Last season I reckon we'd have lost at Leeds and folded last night, but so far we're looking like we're made of sterner stuff this season. Evidently we clearly aren't there yet, but we're looking much improved on last season.

Author:	Hangerman2 [ Fri Apr 26, 2024 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Substitutions
I'm pretty sure that Bibby was selected to stop Hurrell, but when Hurrell had the ball Yates and Cudjoe closed him down quickly and they could have done that with Halsall playing there just as well as with Bibby there. What totally baffles me is why , when you have a centre on the bench, and Bibby has an absolute stinker you don't substitute him out. One mistake, and fair enough on the second one he should have been straight off the pitch as you have a straight up replacement. I don't think Bibby should be near a superleague side, but why you leave him on and only play Halsall in the last ten minutes is beyond me.

Author:	redmuzza [ Sat Apr 27, 2024 11:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Substitutions
Thought you guys did enough to win that. They created very little and got an intercept and a barge over while Connor was arguing the toss with the ref. He had a good game otherwise and did have a point with Clarke slapping him. He is a wind up merchant and that may have contributed to the ref ignoring it. Anyway, see you boys at Wembley

WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/

Substitutions https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=647366	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Gazzagiant2 [ Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Substitutions
First of all great credit to the coaches and players for the form in recent weeks, the style has been much better and we have looked threatening, but I got the impression that after the interception the plan changed and we went back to drives up the middle and kicking rather than moving the ball wide. I thought we should have continued to stretch them but instead persisted in driving up the middle which was ineffectual. I completely agree ref the Bibby / Halsall thing and never understood the decision to sign Bibby. Rightly or wrongly I lay a big portion of the blame for defeat on Connor for abdicating his job at a vital time to go crying to the ref - he needs to stop this nonsense and just play the game - quite clear from the Lomax interview that it is being turned around and others are winding him up and we saw the result - brilliant defence ruined by his stupidity. Overall a decent performance but nothing to show for it

Author:	Hangerman2 [ Sun Apr 28, 2024 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Substitutions
Gazzagiant2 wrote:First of all great credit to the coaches and players for the form in recent weeks, the style has been much better and we have looked threatening, but I got the impression that after the interception the plan changed and we went back to drives up the middle and kicking rather than moving the ball wide. I thought we should have continued to stretch them but instead persisted in driving up the middle which was ineffectual. I completely agree ref the Bibby / Halsall thing and never understood the decision to sign Bibby. Rightly or wrongly I lay a big portion of the blame for defeat on Connor for abdicating his job at a vital time to go crying to the ref - he needs to stop this nonsense and just play the game - quite clear from the Lomax interview that it is being turned around and others are winding him up and we saw the result - brilliant defence ruined by his stupidity. Overall a decent performance but nothing to show for it Very true regarding Connor. At one time he got a rise out of opponents and they lost control/gave away penalties of got carded. Now they just laugh at him, as he is the one getting penalised, it's very embarrassing. Tomkins went through a similar phase, where he spent more time remonstrating to the ref than playing the game, but he learnt quickly. Connor needs to be given the hard word that he is gaining nothing and jeopardising our chances with his outbursts.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/