Re: 1 game in.... : Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:16 pm  

rollin thunder wrote:

Fingers of the panic button, we lost a close game, yes our attack lacked sharpness but Warrington defended very very well, but we dominated most of the game, losing McGuire and Falloon before the game was a blow, remember we got well beaten by Warrington home and away last year and they ended up with jack poop.

I always new we would start slow, see were we are after14-15 games

We beat them 49-10 in our last home game against them.

Re: 1 game in.... : Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:34 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

I have read through all these threads, and can't actually see anything that matches up to what you have come up with.

I think people have commented on last nights game and formed an opinion ON last nights game, which is what the board is for. I think someone asked the question as to whether we should have played NZ, not stated it. Can't see anything on anyone's ego. Sutcliffe debate has been going on for 18 months, so nothing to do with last night.

Why is it knee jerk for people to comment on what they have just watched?

Agreed.....it's a bluddy forum to discuss here a specific game. Don't ya just luv the sanctimonious contingent who believe "their" charges should be beyond reproach or anything less than glowing unquestioning reverence. "Censorship are us" !!!

Re: 1 game in.... : Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:05 pm  

I came away disappointed on a couple of levels from last nights game. One "problem" may be rectified with game time, and that is failing to turn great territory into points. It's not just against the better teams we will be made to pay, you cannot spurn so many chances to score against anyone under the new 12 team format. I would be majorly worried if we spurned so much territory 9 or 10 games in, but Like I said, it's still early days so no harsh judgements just yet. The other problem could turn out to be more of an issue, and that is Zak's conversions. There was quite a long thread last season where a forum contributor reckoned with good coaching and many hours practice, anyone could kick to a great standard. I said it then and I'll say it now, it's absolute rubbish. Zak will never be a good kicker, he will improve, but will cost us points and games along the way. If last night had been the last game of the season, there's no doubt in my mind Lilley would have taking that late penalty. I think the decision for Zak to take it last night was more to psychologically boost him, rather than giving us a better chance to take something from the game. It would appear that Zak is likely to play more regularly than Lilley and Burrow, who I believe are better place kickers, and that's why he's the nominated kicker. Sutcliffe would be another better long term option, but for whatever reason the management have made their choice. Warrington themselves had a similar problem last season, going through 4 or 5 kickers certainly showed their turmoil in that regard and undoubtedly contributed to their poor season. I suppose the ideal answer would be to make problem a non issue by scoring so many tries it doesn't come down to 2 points here and there. As we know by our last minute win at Huddersfield, and a 2 point win in the Grand Final, it often does.

Re: 1 game in.... : Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:11 pm  

It was a good first hit out. Warrington look very well drilled in defence and look like they can put decent plays on in attack. If they have consistency they will be one of the main contenders this season, no doubt about it. Yet on another night we win that game. We are fine.

Re: 1 game in.... : Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:14 pm  

leeds owl wrote:

I came away disappointed on a couple of levels from last nights game. One "problem" may be rectified with game time, and that is failing to turn great territory into points. It's not just against the better teams we will be made to pay, you cannot spurn so many chances to score against anyone under the new 12 team format. I would be majorly worried if we spurned so much territory 9 or 10 games in, but Like I said, it's still early days so no harsh judgements just yet. The other problem could turn out to be more of an issue, and that is Zak's conversions. There was quite a long thread last season where a forum contributor reckoned with good coaching and many hours practice, anyone could kick to a great standard. I said it then and I'll say it now, it's absolute rubbish. Zak will never be a good kicker, he will improve, but will cost us points and games along the way. If last night had been the last game of the season, there's no doubt in my mind Lilley would have taking that late penalty. I think the decision for Zak to take it last night was more to psychologically boost him, rather than giving us a better chance to take something from the game. It would appear that Zak is likely to play more regularly than Lilley and Burrow, who I believe are better place kickers, and that's why he's the nominated kicker. Sutcliffe would be another better long term option, but for whatever reason the management have made their choice. Warrington themselves had a similar problem last season, going through 4 or 5 kickers certainly showed their turmoil in that regard and undoubtedly contributed to their poor season. I suppose the ideal answer would be to make problem a non issue by scoring so many tries it doesn't come down to 2 points here and there. As we know by our last minute win at Huddersfield, and a 2 point win in the Grand Final, it often does.

Careful now..

A well thought out and considered opinion IMO