barham red wrote:First off that was a really enjoyable game of rugby, and had the ellis penalty gone over then it might have been a different result. A lot on here are saying it was an average display from Hull, personally I thought it wasnt massively different to the Leeds display just that you played a team with a better game plan. Leeds were beyond dire last week, and fair play to Hull they did a job but that was about it. Looking at the starting line ups that should've been a cricket score, for we're relegation favourites, and missing our intended front row of Garbutt, Masoe, Parcell, our captain Hauraki and Abdull all who wouldve been in the 17 and playing a team tipped for honours missing only Mau and Faurimo from the starting 17 (not including Kelly or Ellis as are they starting 17?) then I think it shows the difference a quality coach makes. .
That game wont define our season or yours, certainly made for a good nights entertainment though
Let's get one thing straight the quality in coaching has no bearing on that result, if it did you could argue Hull are better defensively, more clinical and patient. Hardly a surprise how Rovers played was the only choice they had and with us coming off a shorter turnaround it was always going to level the game out. Period.
Great effort from Rovers you probably deserved it to the naked eye but I stick by what I said other then swinging it from left to right very little in line breaks and actual opportunities created. Got lucky with the first try but that's Rugby.
Hardly the benchmark of the season for either team or reflects a coaches ability.
barham red wrote:Ive never said dire but you are predictable and at times it's a drab ste of play. The way Radford has set you up with connor at 6 and kelly out of favour it screams hit up and go for a cross field kick. Fair play it beat us and Leeds but will it win a championship? You're a top quality coach away from that
I barely remember any cross field kicks from us last night and the same against leeds. rovers, on the other hand, were peppering our wingers with high balls all night.
pmarrow wrote:Let's get one thing straight the quality in coaching has no bearing on that result, if it did you could argue Hull are better defensively, more clinical and patient. Hardly a surprise how Rovers played was the only choice they had and with us coming off a shorter turnaround it was always going to level the game out. Period.
Great effort from Rovers you probably deserved it to the naked eye but I stick by what I said other then swinging it from left to right very little in line breaks and actual opportunities created. Got lucky with the first try but that's Rugby.
Hardly the benchmark of the season for either team or reflects a coaches ability.
It's all a matter of opinions but on paper that was a cricket score in the waiting. The fact we made few line breaks was more down to the quality of our half backs and the playing staff available. This year will probably tell for hull if radford is good enough, with saints under a new coach and picking up injuries and the squad Pearson has put together anything other than top 4 will be failure
pmarrow wrote:Let's get one thing straight the quality in coaching has no bearing on that result, if it did you could argue Hull are better defensively, more clinical and patient. Hardly a surprise how Rovers played was the only choice they had and with us coming off a shorter turnaround it was always going to level the game out. Period.
Great effort from Rovers you probably deserved it to the naked eye but I stick by what I said other then swinging it from left to right very little in line breaks and actual opportunities created. Got lucky with the first try but that's Rugby.
Hardly the benchmark of the season for either team or reflects a coaches ability.
I agree with JTP previous opening paragraph. Rovers played a more expansive attacking brand of rugby. We played as we usually do, percentage, low risk rugby driven up the middle. It was the quality of the squads that made the difference last night, not the coaching ability of which Tony Smith is streets ahead of Lee currently with experience at big clubs, winning trophies and coaching the national team.
We have the ability to play expansive rugby and when we do it's good to watch but play the power game predominantly instead. I don't think we gave our wingers any clear cut chances last night.
Bombed Out wrote:I agree with JTP previous opening paragraph. Rovers played a more expansive attacking brand of rugby. We played as we usually do, percentage, low risk rugby driven up the middle. It was the quality of the squads that made the difference last night, not the coaching ability of which Tony Smith is streets ahead of Lee currently with experience at big clubs, winning trophies and coaching the national team.
We have the ability to play expansive rugby and when we do it's good to watch but play the power game predominantly instead. I don't think we gave our wingers any clear cut chances last night.
Ok, so if we shipped the ball about like Harlem globetrotters (whilst actually not creating any chances) do you think we would have had the fitness in the last 20 to see the game out after such a short turnaround.
We didn't dominate as much as we would like but thought in the end Radford got it right, made sure we had it defensively and had the ability to turn our field position into points.
Smith is a great coach but he can't teach teams to defend, I think when he won the WCC he conceded 32 points. So to say he is streets ahead is way off the mark. We are 2 from 2 and looking great defensively at the moment and Radford deserves credit for that.
Thought that was a superb Derby, Rovers played a real expansive game and gave us problems. short turnaround had an impact but we had enough to grind them down. Impressed with Satae, Sao and Savellio. Connor will get better and better in the 6 shirt, really took the line on. Sneyd was excellent as well. The turning point was the missed penalty and then us storming to the other end to score.
Griffin was immense such a strong runner for us, must have been 200+ m for the night?
Rovers will stay up if they play with that mindset.
And the pre match build up was fantastic, Sterlo, lights, flags it had everything.
pmarrow wrote:Ok, so if we shipped the ball about like Harlem globetrotters (whilst actually not creating any chances) do you think we would have had the fitness in the last 20 to see the game out after such a short turnaround.
We didn't dominate as much as we would like but thought in the end Radford got it right, made sure we had it defensively and had the ability to turn our field position into points.
Smith is a great coach but he can't teach teams to defend, I think when he won the WCC he conceded 32 points. So to say he is streets ahead is way off the mark. We are 2 from 2 and looking great defensively at the moment and Radford deserves credit for that.
Couldn’t agree more. Smiths plan was pretty simple really, we can’t stay with them down the middle so work Hulls big men by chucking the ball around side to side.
It was easy to defend against as long as we kept our line with nobody jumping out which we did except that Crooks try.
Joined: Mar 14 2003 Posts: 25791 Location: Back in Hull.
For all Rovers amazing style of play,did they ever look like scoring a try (apart from the 3 they got), did they have a clean break? As soon as they got near our line, there plan was kick it high to Shaul or the wingers.
Thought we created a few chances and clean breaks and all our of trys were from good attacking (As where 3 of Rovers trys to be fair).
I think people are over playing the playing styles of both teams
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
