Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:56 pm  

DoubleAone wrote:

Its a mute question and maybe a pointless one with all due respect yes

we werent at full strength but neither were they.

The main point for me is that we competed for the full 80 mins and showed the NRL is NOT what some fekwits on here would have us all believe.

with a bit luck would have won it but its history now. Lets kick on and go for a 4th SL title.

and beat Saints at OT for a record breaking 4th time??? ..mmm yes , i will settle for that

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:56 pm  

He should have penalised both sides much more earlier in the game to prevent the constant lying on.
However, that may have counted against us if the Storm PTB had been quicker but at least we'd have seen rugby & not something akin to constant Rugby Union rucks & mauls.

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:58 pm  

Maybe it needed a yellow card to either side to make them both take more notice?

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:58 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Indeed. Watkins will rue those missed chances, and Sinfield picking up than injury. Was too close to call till near the end, and I enjoyed the game. Would have had no problem congratulating either team on the win, since either would have deserved it for that defensive slogathon. FWIW I think Silverwood allowed them to lie on too much, but you lot normally have lying-on timed to perfection so I guess they applied your own tactics against you.

Good Post. I havent really got a problem with the PTB ruling. We had enough chances to win it.

Great Game most people are overlooking the appalling conditions so both teams are to be congratulated on playing so well.

Losing Sinfield so early was a crucial aspect.

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:00 pm  

Old Feller wrote:

He should have penalised both sides much more earlier in the game to prevent the constant lying on.
However, that may have counted against us if the Storm PTB had been quicker but at least we'd have seen rugby & not something akin to constant Rugby Union rucks & mauls.

Have to agree with you. The slowing down the play of the ball needed to have been sorted out right from the start. I am just glad Leeds played well and did not get a stuffing.

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:01 pm  

DoubleAone wrote:

Losing Sinfield so early was a crucial aspect.

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:02 pm  

Fylde Coast Warrior wrote:

I'd say it was a great effort from melbourne with 6 key players missing, all being said was a cracking game, and no donald would not have scored those tries, watkins did well even to get close.

No way Donald is faster, better ball control and would have certainly scored the second one and had a better than 50/50 chance on the first Watkins blunder,

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:03 pm  

You had Donald out, and Sinfield for a lot of it.

Melbourne were without 4 (or was it 6?) senior players, including their organiser 7.

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:04 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

:BOOHOO:

Yes it is a shame.....the game would have been even better if he had remained fit.

Re: Well Done Storm : Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:08 pm  

DoubleAone wrote:

Yes it is a shame.....the game would have been even better if he had remained fit.

Did I say different?