: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:01 pm  

af wrote:

No Morley or Westwood for them... hmm.

The eleven points dropped to Wakey, Cas, Hudds, Hull KR, Celtic and Salford would have had us in second spot and needing just three more wins for a spot. Ho hum, auntie b.ll.cks etc.

give your a shake you no where good enough today to get into the top eight, you lot need to give up drinking that white lighting makes you see things that aren't there

[Durham Giant]

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:02 pm  

af wrote:

Looked at your results. When you don't win, you tend to get whupped, eh? Meanwhile, Bulls are the masters of the agonising defeat.

I bet warrington at home was agonising

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:07 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

I bet warrington at home was agonising

We were just mixing it up there. It is odd that Hudds have only had five defeats all year but that includes three stuffings, while the Bulls have had nine (inc. cup) but been battered just twice.

[Durham Giant]

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:10 pm  

af wrote:

We were just mixing it up there. It is odd that Hudds have only had five defeats all year but that includes three stuffings, while the Bulls have had nine (inc. cup) but been battered just twice.

well you are right to point out our inconsistency.

HOWEVER


i prefer our inconsistency with 3 defeats of more than 20 points to your consistently losing games by 6 or less

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:10 pm  

af wrote:

No Morley or Westwood for them... hmm.

The eleven points dropped to Wakey, Cas, Hudds, Hull KR, Celtic and Salford would have had us in second spot and needing just three more wins for a spot. Ho hum, auntie b.ll.cks etc.

Just a note Andrew you do keep using this logic a lot the fact is and will always be that we weren't good enough for the win that day.

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:17 pm  

Oh, without question I'd swap the five narrow defeats and a draw for a couple more wins and some thumpngs. But it does beg the question that if this team is as godawful as is made out, why are they within touch of every side they play save two?

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:22 pm  

af wrote:

Oh, without question I'd swap the five narrow defeats and a draw for a couple more wins and some thumpngs. But it does beg the question that if this team is as godawful as is made out, why are they within touch of every side they play save two?

What a silly quote it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 point or 60 points you still get the same outcome no competition points. So if we lose all our remaining games by a point and finish 14th we won't be an awful side then will we.

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:29 pm  

redeverready wrote:

What a silly quote it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 point or 60 points you still get the same outcome no competition points. So if we lose all our remaining games by a point and finish 14th we won't be an awful side then will we.

I think af just means that people are saying we are absolute garbage and if we were as bad as they make out we'd be losing every game by 50+ points.

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:32 pm  

redeverready wrote:

What a silly quote it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 point or 60 points you still get the same outcome no competition points. So if we lose all our remaining games by a point and finish 14th we won't be an awful side then will we.

If that came to pass, I am sure it would be commented upon. I'm not looking for absolution of all Bradford's sins here, just pointing out an interesting anomaly. I'll give you another, all but five teams have lost at least as many games as us, though only one has won less.

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:33 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

I think af just means that people are saying we are absolute garbage and if we were as bad as they make out we'd be losing every game by 50+ points.

Or at least a few more by 18-24 points.