Re: Why? : Sun May 21, 2017 6:56 pm  

Fr13daY wrote:

Ricketts was injured yesterday in training, that's why he didn't play. That's from the bcb interview/apology Mick did with Beattie after the game. He sounds like a defeated man as well.

Apologies fair enough!

[Bulliac]

Re: Why? : Mon May 22, 2017 9:01 am  

Can't say I'm exactly surprised at comments about Halafihi as he's been everyone's 'get at player' for ages. I do think he deserves a little slack though.

Faint praise it may be, but he was no worse than others who have trained this season with the squad and have played together in the first team before and were playing in their usual positions. We clearly have no confidence at all and were dire. Vila wasn't, by any means, the least effective player on the field though.

Re: Why? : Mon May 22, 2017 9:10 am  

Faie enough, if Ricketts was injured, it was an emergency, especially with Oakes, Smith and Mendeika being unavailable (Caro as well, I assume?)

But the usual response when there is a shortage in the centres is to play a second rower there, as it only moves them out one position in the defensive line

I think it's the randomness of it being a hooker that provoked comment...

Re: Why? : Mon May 22, 2017 9:53 am  

Why is Lumb out of favour? He can at least tackle and pass. Thought Hallas had a good game. I thought generally we were solid up the middle. All our issues came on Leon's side where you had Macani, bloody quick and a good finisher but defensively weak, Vila who is not a centre and positionally unaware at that side, Leon who is nowhere near being fit enough to play and Cameron Smith on debut. London exploited that weakness and we ended up all over the place. I would put that in the coaches court, not the players. A third of the pitch compromised.

[Bullseye]

Re: Why? : Mon May 22, 2017 9:57 am  

He certainly struggled with the position. It's one thing to do it in wet conditions like he did at home to Fev in the mud where open rugby was limited but on a firm pitch against a bigger, stronger and much quicker opponent he was very exposed.

If he's there versus HKR they'll have a field day.

I would've put Pryce in the centres but obviously he wasn't fit either.

On the hooker issue missing Moore was a big blow. Hallas did ok but wasn't as sharp offensively. Not sure what's happened to Lumb.

Re: Why? : Mon May 22, 2017 10:20 am  

SCONE wrote:

Why is Lumb out of favour? He can at least tackle and pass. Thought Hallas had a good game. I thought generally we were solid up the middle. All our issues came on Leon's side where you had Macani, bloody quick and a good finisher but defensively weak, Vila who is not a centre and positionally unaware at that side, Leon who is nowhere near being fit enough to play and Cameron Smith on debut. London exploited that weakness and we ended up all over the place. I would put that in the coaches court, not the players. A third of the pitch compromised.

I wouldn't agree that Macani was a good finisher. Quick yes, but he hardly ever backs himself and yesterday had a case of the dropsies. I know we were probably desperate yesterday so I can excuse the selection, but in any other circumstances he shouldn't be getting near the team.

Correct though that it was that side that was always going to be a problem as soon as you saw them line up. London aren't stupid enough to not totally exploit it.

Re: Why? : Mon May 22, 2017 10:32 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

I wouldn't agree that Macani was a good finisher.

My bad. Overselling him a bit there. He can finish if he has a clear run.