: Sun May 17, 2009 9:19 pm  

Duckman wrote:

Yes, that was a very obvious failing on our part. It was clear from the off that they were targetting Deacs with and without the ball but we didn't respond to it and by the second half Deacs looked punch drunk to me. Their game plan seemed to be do the simple things correctly, run hard, tackle hard, take no risks in your own half, win the kicking game and stop Deacon... and it worked to a treat, the best team won.

It's basic coaching to target the weakest link.

: Sun May 17, 2009 9:30 pm  

A lot of good insight above I think. When everything goes thro' Deacon at first receiver we don't look anywhere near as threatening, Jefferies defers and isn't as effective, much prefer him to be in the key position. Deacon's also been targeted throughout the season and it looks as though the cumulative effect is starting to tell and it's becoming an obvious part of the opposition gameplan. Jefferies/Sykes was far more difficult to read.

Otherwise our forwards were not at the races, Lynch and Burgess put in reasonable stints, but Scruton and Koppy were both ineffective, although neither were given much opportunity because of slow distribution from dummy half. Halley wasn't at his best either, and as red points out was out of position twice at crucial moments. I think Platt would have been the better choice today at FB (he's till getting grief without just cause in my book), although hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I expect the gameplan was - wet weather, conservative approach, knock out the sets, play the percentages and grind them down, get field position then run a couple of set moves and bob's your uncle. Once Celtic scored and their forwards were holding their own we looked bereft of ideas. Second half we should have upped the intensity, but we still played like we assumed we'd get back into it, ithout anyone knuckling down and maintaining concentration or discipline long enough for us to make that happen. Some should tell the players that if you catch the ball from a kick-off with your foot planted over the line, it's better than catching it on tippy toes a foot in front of the line and then stepping backwards!

Ah well, onwards and sidewards...

: Sun May 17, 2009 9:38 pm  

Hmm. Went to bed with it at 4-nil, thinking 'Well, we were losing to Salford at one point before putting 96 on them'. That said, not really that surprised to see the eventual scoreline. And definitely not surprised to see RAB suddenly abuzz with activity.

I take some small consolation in the cluelessness of our guest from Huddersfield who doesn't seem to have noticed that his side mustered all of four points at home to Salford, and that my Haligonian pal that is crashing on my utilty room floor will not be able to gloat too hard as the result means the death of his flatcapper dream, a winless first season for the Crusaders. But I imagine that is little in the face of watching what sounds like a pretty abject performance in the rain with 7,000 other (last two wins not bringing them back you will note).

Where from here? Tough to say. The previously mentioned Huddersfield result provides a little context, as does the season - thirteen games, nine settled by a single score. Win all those and we'd be top or near as damnit. Lose them all and we're just shy of rock bottom. As it is we're somewhere in the middle, though sadly nearer the latter.

Meh. On my way to work. First kid that mentions the scoreline's on litter duty.

: Sun May 17, 2009 11:16 pm  

af wrote:

Hmm. Went to bed with it at 4-nil, thinking 'Well, we were losing to Salford at one point before putting 96 on them'. That said, not really that surprised to see the eventual scoreline. And definitely not surprised to see RAB suddenly abuzz with activity.

I take some small consolation in the cluelessness of our guest from Huddersfield who doesn't seem to have noticed that his side mustered all of four points at home to Salford, and that my Haligonian pal that is crashing on my utilty room floor will not be able to gloat too hard as the result means the death of his flatcapper dream, a winless first season for the Crusaders. But I imagine that is little in the face of watching what sounds like a pretty abject performance in the rain with 7,000 other (last two wins not bringing them back you will note).

Where from here? Tough to say. The previously mentioned Huddersfield result provides a little context, as does the season - thirteen games, nine settled by a single score. Win all those and we'd be top or near as damnit. Lose them all and we're just shy of rock bottom. As it is we're somewhere in the middle, though sadly nearer the latter.

Meh. On my way to work. First kid that mentions the scoreline's on litter duty.

Why does it. Also any way you look at it it's 9 points from a possible 26 and that's just not good enough.

: Sun May 17, 2009 11:56 pm  

What does 'not good enough' mean? Seriously?

: Mon May 18, 2009 12:09 am  

af wrote:

What does 'not good enough' mean? Seriously?

It means that a team that on paper that is should be good enough to be in the top 4 shouldn't be sat 11th in the league after half a season.

: Mon May 18, 2009 1:31 am  

af wrote:

What does 'not good enough' mean? Seriously?

It means, 7 pages later, red is finally agreeing with my OP and quoting my words of wisdom.

: Mon May 18, 2009 5:44 am  

af wrote:

What does 'not good enough' mean? Seriously?

What do you think it means?

: Mon May 18, 2009 5:47 am  

af wrote:

What does 'not good enough' mean? Seriously?

Outside the playoffs by several points. What do you think it means?

: Mon May 18, 2009 5:56 am  

anarkik wrote:

I think Platt would have been the better choice today at FB (he's till getting grief without just cause in my book)

I honestly can't recall seeing a back 3 (Platt played most of the game at wing) run sideways so much. I don't think it would have made much difference who was where.

That said, I think that Burgess, Lynch and to a lesser extent Sykes (if for his massive tackles alone) are the only ones who deserve credit today. Oh, and Worrincy who looked head and shoulders above the likes of Langley and Cook in terms of effort, enthusiasm, strong running and the lines that he kept trying to produce off a flat, slow attack.