It doesn't matter how many you lose by it's still a loss. If anything narrow losses suggest we don't have the ability to turn them into wins.
I agree partially, but it shows we have at least some ability, in some cases to defend them getting more tries, or in others to score a reasonable amount of tries.
I agree partially, but it shows we have at least some ability, in some cases to defend them getting more tries, or in others to score a reasonable amount of tries.
Sorry but that's confusing what point are you trying to make.
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.
An anomaly which suggests if it's a tight game we normally end up loosing.
It doesn't matter how many you lose by it's still a loss. If anything narrow losses suggest we don't have the ability to turn them into wins.
OK, so by the same standard...
redeverready could perhaps have wrote:
It doesn't matter how many you win by it's still a win.
But on the 8-1 thread, redeverready actually wrote:
On the game I thought the attitude of the players was a lot better but the overall level of the performance was just as bad IMO.
Make your mind up. Why is it that when we lose, the performance is irrelevant to the result, but when we win then you get your magnifying glass out and start to look at what was going on?
Results are important and for the competition they're obviously crucial, but we can look past them as well, in an attempt to get a clearer idea of what's going on.
An anomaly which suggests if it's a tight game we normally end up loosing.
But a tight game doesn't just drop out of the sky, does it? Bulls weren't good enough to force a tight game against Wgan and Wire and they got slaughtered on here for that failing. But they have made a game of every one of their thirteen other fixtures.
Sorry but that's confusing what point are you trying to make.
That we can't be as rubbish as people make out to actually get the points on the scoreboard against these teams that are apparantly so much better than us.
Make your mind up. Why is it that when we lose, the performance is irrelevant to the result, but when we win then you get your magnifying glass out and start to look at what was going on?
It would have been better if you had taken that post in conjuction with the other posts on the thread about how we had played better IMO we hadn't.
Back to results over performance this is and always would be the most important. I'm happy with todays poor display because we won it's much better than a good display and not winning.
That we can't be as rubbish as people make out to actually get the points on the scoreboard against these teams that are apparantly so much better than us.
I don't think many people are saying these teams are so much better than us, that's why people are hacked off that we are running 12th in the table and are trying to be told that simply making the top 8 will equate to a good season.
That we can't be as rubbish as people make out to actually get the points on the scoreboard against these teams that are apparantly so much better than us.
Rugby's a simple game the team that scores the most points wins and that's what people remember the winners nothow many points the loosers scored.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 115 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...
Why is it that when we lose, the performance is irrelevant to the result, but when we win then you get your magnifying glass out and start to look at what was going on?
