craigizzard wrote:
What about the "tactic" to use our starting props for the entire first half (Cuthbertson for the first 60 minutes)? Or of leaving Sinfield on the bench throughout the first half when we desperately needed control and some form of kicking game.
Honestly, just when you think BMac knows what he's doing he defies you. (To be fair, he also has a habit of defying you just when you think he doesn't know what he's doing. He's a very peculiar coach.)
Well Peacock is definitely capable of doing 40 mins and IIRC Singleton went off in the first half but I can't really recall when.
I also can see why he left Sinfield off. We looked like we needed pace and energy rather than steady as she goes. If anything I'd say we needed Burrow on rather than Sinfield.
I don't think the props, in isolation, or the kicking game was the issue. We just didn't support each other either in attack or defence.
We didn't support the ball carrier, there was nowhere enough bodies in motion when we had the ball except on a couple of occasions in Wire's 20.
And we certainly didn't get enough bodies into the tackle. That's why Wire got quick play the balls which Higham and Clark took advantage of.
I also think it was one of those days where the luck doesn't go for you. If the ball was going to bounce it would bounce in a way that favoured Wire. On numerous occasions we tackled hard enough to dislodge the ball but it went backwards and into a Wire hand. By contrast the times Wire did it to us it went forwards and was a knock on.
There was also a not insignificant effect on the game by the Work Experience Lad with the whistle.
I think Wire's tactics played perfectly to their strengths.
I don't think our tactics not the interchanges were the primary reason for our poor performance. I think the players not playing well enough was the primary reason.
Maybe the effects of Easter and a small squad catching up with us plus missing Briscoe, Hall, JJB & Leuluai, plus Wire playing well, plus us not playing that well.
