Joined: Jan 30 2004 Posts: 8270 Location: Never never land away with the fairies
Mild mannered Janitor wrote:Bit concerned that Pritchard never returned to the field. Any news on him?
1 defeat in 11.
2 defeats in 17.
I'd have taken that at the start of the season.
Need a reaction now from the squad and to go on another run of 5-6 games without defeat.
For the record we lost fair and square, but quite how Hudds 3rd try was allowed to stand is beyond me. A clear knock on.
According the Radford its an ankle but no news on severity think he was taken off as a precaution not long after it happened.
One of the things that this club and team are going to have to get used to now is as they sit at the top (rightly so for the effort etc they have put in so far this season) they are now a massive scalp for the teams that are struggling and Huddersfiled showed that in bucket fulls last night.
Their 3rd try should never have stood and quite how the officials missed it is beyond me.
Just think as individuals and collectively as a team last night was one of those nights and it had been coming, no shame in that at all and to be where we currently are is way above what any of us expected.
I'm pretty sure they will have learnt a massive lesson last night and it will a blessing in a backhanded way. As others have said Radford spoke honestly and saw what we all saw so no doubt things will be worked on.
On another note had it not been for the outstanding performance of a certain player coming to us next season it may well have been a different story so thats a positive from last night we all saw what a player we are getting.
I really enjoy long walks especially when they are taken by people I don't like!
Last edited by Chris71 on Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Personally I thought we got 3 tough calls in the space of 5 minutes which took the game away from us just after Washbrook got us back in the game. 1. If the Michaels try is not a try then it is a Connor knock on and our head and feed 2. The Carlos knock on that led to the Hudds second try was initially knocked on by Huddwersfield 3. The first McGilvray try was a joke and should have at least been reviewed
So with a tired, depleted team on a foul night we are down 18 8 and all the momentum has switched to Huddersfield I think it would have been very different but for 3 poor decisions We did not play well but at 8 6 we were right back in it and getting on the front foot
onefinradford wrote:Personally I thought we got 3 tough calls in the space of 5 minutes which took the game away from us just after Washbrook got us back in the game. 1. If the Michaels try is not a try then it is a Connor knock on and our head and feed 2. The Carlos knock on that led to the Hudds second try was initially knocked on by Huddwersfield 3. The first McGilvray try was a joke and should have at least been reviewed
So with a tired, depleted team on a foul night we are down 18 8 and all the momentum has switched to Huddersfield I think it would have been very different but for 3 poor decisions We did not play well but at 8 6 we were right back in it and getting on the front foot
1. The Michaels try incident was before Washbrook scored, so you could argue that had Michaels try been given, the Washbrook one wouldnt have. Plus it was wider out and conversion could have been missed.
Agree with point 2 and 3. We were hardly depleted, Huddersfield had more players out than us - including their main playmaker who is a constant thorn in our side.
Joined: Jan 30 2004 Posts: 8270 Location: Never never land away with the fairies
Wilde 3 wrote:1. The Michaels try incident was before Washbrook scored, so you could argue that had Michaels try been given, the Washbrook one wouldnt have. Plus it was wider out and conversion could have been missed.
Agree with point 2 and 3. We were hardly depleted, Huddersfield had more players out than us - including their main playmaker who is a constant thorn in our side.
Thought they actually looked a better and more together team without him to be honest
I really enjoy long walks especially when they are taken by people I don't like!
Armavinit wrote:Sorry to dissapoint but watched the game live, without blinkers, unlike you. You've constantly said " Pryce to stand off, Carlos to centre at the expense of Yeamo" last night proved it to be a disaster. Yeaman would have defended 2 of the tries. Carlos went good at six and Pryce was crap, hiding at the play the ball most of the game. Did Naughton make mistakes? yes he looked tired, yes he jogged back, but brought the ball out time and again, into a brick wall as Coffee woman said, he looked to have taken a knock early on, plus got Mason's knees in his back for his troubles. The game often looks different on tv don't you think. Maybe you'll take the blinkers off now.
You are correct Pryce was as you say crap but it wasnt Tuimavave that looked good when moved to 6 anyone would have looked better than Pryce last night. Naughton was poor, the previous post to yours was also of the same opinion so it not only me. How do you know Yeaman would have defended two of their tries? Maybe you could send me next weeks Lotto numbers
I think naughton is getting some unfair criticism. He was at fault certainly for the first try and maybe should have been there for the 2nd but the kid is playing his 2nd game at FB in 2 years so you can hardly expect him to be up to shaul's standard straight away.
Hindsight is great but given the very short turnaround would have it not being even more important to have played a lot more fresher legs. I would have thought it was an ideal time to rest Houghton and give Jez Litten a run out and also one or two of Masim Matongo, Brad Fash Or Jack Downs and even a run out for a junior half? It was always going to be a big ask after Saturday, we've being nicking games over the last few weeks (& some before that too) with some very patchy performances so this loss was very much on the cards. Given the circumstances I would have been more than happy to see any of the above names in the 17 and maybe those extra fresher legs could have made a difference a la Warrington. As I said, hindsight is great but it was done before so why not again?
knockersbumpMKII wrote:Hindsight is great but given the very short turnaround would have it not being even more important to have played a lot more fresher legs. I would have thought it was an ideal time to rest Houghton and give Jez Litten a run out and also one or two of Masim Matongo, Brad Fash Or Jack Downs and even a run out for a junior half? It was always going to be a big ask after Saturday, we've being nicking games over the last few weeks (& some before that too) with some very patchy performances so this loss was very much on the cards. Given the circumstances I would have been more than happy to see any of the above names in the 17 and maybe those extra fresher legs could have made a difference a la Warrington. As I said, hindsight is great but it was done before so why not again?
Yeah, I'm sure radford would have been praised to high heaven putting out a team of kids last night who would likely have got mullered
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
