Re: Coventry (H) : Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:50 pm  

Marvin Goolash wrote:

I agree with Bull Mania . I think once the grounds firm up we will see the best of Chisholm. A few players were slipping and sliding all over the place yesterday.

Yep, hard to disagree. Got to remember we have only seen Chisholm mid-season on good firm pitches (both spells he joined us midway through season). Add to the fact he's had a very serious knee injury and I think we won't see the best of him until probably July/August at the very earliest.

I know we have a superior team on paper, even with the new part time/full time hybrid but it looks like its proving hard to get up for these kind of games. There is a marked difference in home "performances" and away games where the support is much more compact and vocal. I have to admit I've found it hard (and quite frankly depressing) to get up for home games in a pretty much empty stadium, compared to the away ones... and i'm sure it must be the same for the players.

Re: Coventry (H) : Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:57 pm  

Think some are being a bit hard on Chisholm. He is slowly making his way back from a horrendous injury and reconstruction, and I had thought it might take half a season for him to be back where he was, if he can, after that sort of injury, which in his position is a big potential if. On firmer ground, he is looking reasonably good to me, and as his backing up for the length of the filed "wonder try" showed he hasn't lost his pace.

He did look quiet on Sunday, seemed to just pass the ball on and not go for his trademark linebreaks, but maybe conditions underfoot put him off.

It is all very well saying a better team woulda coulda, but we weren't playing a better team, we did put 50 on them, and so calling for 80 is a bit churlish, we didn't need to be the Harlem Globetrotters. I would have liked a more enjoyable performance but won't complain too much at being plainly a vastly superior team, despite not firing on all cylinders. We wouldn't have played as flat against better opposition, and I think seasoned watchers realise that.

Re: Coventry (H) : Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:14 pm  

Not going to argue with you aardvark but if you take the goals missed and the 3 possible tries that wasn’t given then you have by my calcs 78 points

Re: Coventry (H) : Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:25 pm  

I think had it not been for the 'right some wrongs' rumblings from some quarters it would have been a perfectly solid performance and I'd not have felt so 'meh'. Wasn't so much a back lash as a recalcitrant grumble

And I'm with the Touchie, that ball bounced about 6 inches in the field of play.....

Re: Coventry (H) : Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:17 am  

When you see the state of the field particularly the coral stand end and how it looked you can see that doesn't suit Chisholm game, quick stepping, chipping over, running game etc, not on that pitch

Re: Coventry (H) : Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:33 pm  

Scarey71 wrote:

And I'm with the Touchie, that ball bounced about 6 inches in the field of play.....

Yes, that one is on my list of most ludicrous reffing decisions ever.

The touchie has one job, to run his line. You could see that he was certain that was a try - he stood his ground for ages - yet the ref, from an impossible position, decided the touchie was wrong and the ball had gone out. I simply don't see how he could do that, surely to goodness the touchie must be his first port of call, and if he says it was good, then he MUSt accept his evidence? When the touchie confirmed it had not gone out, on what basis could any ref reasonably overrule?

[Bulliac]

Re: Coventry (H) : Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:48 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Yes, that one is on my list of most ludicrous reffing decisions ever.

The touchie has one job, to run his line. You could see that he was certain that was a try - he stood his ground for ages - yet the ref, from an impossible position, decided the touchie was wrong and the ball had gone out. I simply don't see how he could do that, surely to goodness the touchie must be his first port of call, and if he says it was good, then he MUSt accept his evidence? When the touchie confirmed it had not gone out, on what basis could any ref reasonably overrule?

The only logical reason I can come up with is that the ref and touchie had a right flaming ding-dong in the changing room and the ref just did it to show who is boss. The ref's decision is final, as we all know, but why he'd overrule a man who was in a far better position to judge, leaves me struggling to find an answer.