Re: The positives and the negatives : Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:15 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Thought you were very good today and deserving of more than you got in the end. I'd have happily given you a win today were it not for the injustice of Friday.

I agree on Bentham, there were some very strange calls both ways.

Huby's injury was unfortunate, it was a superb hit on Puletua. I've never, ever seen anyone shake the big man like that. Something had to give there unfortunately and it happened to be Huby. Any news on what exactly the problem was?

And I can't believe you've not mentioned your half backs. Rangi Chase, on that showing, is the best halfback in Super League. Absolutely astounding performance. Danny Orr also ran his blood to water for you. I thought you were brilliant defensively, the tries we did score took some scoring and it seemed like you didn't make a mistake all game. I was very impressed with Cas today.

I think we finally proved yesterday that we're not in a false position and that we are competitive against the top teams - it really was a superb performance. It's just a shame we didn't play like that on Friday in which case I suspect we'd have blown Wakey off the park.

Our defence, now that you mention it was simply astounding for the most part, although we did drop a lot of ball early on and three times in our own half. I agree that Orr and Chase were superb but I'd argue our best players on the day also included Mathers, Huby, Jackson and Thompson - all made great contributions and Thompson is really working hard to cement his place after what seems to have been a very fruitful loan period.

Re: The positives and the negatives : Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:19 am  

Oli Holmes deserves a mention. MOTM for me.

Re: The positives and the negatives : Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:07 pm  

Bonzo wrote:

I think we finally proved yesterday that we're not in a false position and that we are competitive against the top teams - it really was a superb performance. It's just a shame we didn't play like that on Friday in which case I suspect we'd have blown Wakey off the park.

Our defence, now that you mention it was simply astounding for the most part, although we did drop a lot of ball early on and three times in our own half. I agree that Orr and Chase were superb but I'd argue our best players on the day also included Mathers, Huby, Jackson and Thompson - all made great contributions and Thompson is really working hard to cement his place after what seems to have been a very fruitful loan period.

And if we'd have played against you like we did against London we'd have smashed you. If Tomkins leg had dropped off and young Wildy played like Wally Lewis we would have stuffed Wigan. Come off it, this attempt by Cas fans to revise history is getting tiresome. What makes you assume that if you'd have played that way Wakefield wouldn't have raised their game, as I said on another thread you're not that good that others can't match you.

Also weren't Saints down to the bare bones?

Just accept you were beaten by a better team last friday, that's how it is there are no if, but or maybe, only what happened on the day. When you next beat us you will be the better team, anything else is just wishful thinking.

Re: The positives and the negatives : Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:16 pm  

Also weren't Saints down to the bare bones

Makinson; Gardner, Shenton, Meli, Foster; Wilkin, Lomax; Graham, Roby, McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Soliola Ashurst, Puletua.

Replacements: Moore, Dixon, Magennis, Armstrong. ,

Not as bare as they would have you believe

We were without youngquest, walker, fozzard, widders, McGoldrick, and lost huby in the game

Re: The positives and the negatives : Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:20 pm  

If your saying that the players in blue are our first choice in their position then far from it. Wilkin our of position, Lomax was probably 4th choice halfback at the start of the year, LMS would be on the bench. At the start of the year Meli would be on the wing and Foster wouldnt of featured.

Re: The positives and the negatives : Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:33 pm  

vastman wrote: And if we'd have played against you like we did against London we'd have smashed you. If Tomkins leg had dropped off and young Wildy played like Wally Lewis we would have stuffed Wigan. Come off it, this attempt by Cas fans to revise history is getting tiresome. What makes you assume that if you'd have played that way Wakefield wouldn't have raised their game, as I said on another thread you're not that good that others can't match you. Also weren't Saints down to the bare bones? Just accept you were beaten by a better team last friday, that's how it is there are no if, but or maybe, only what happened on the day. When you next beat us you will be the better team, anything else is just wishful thinking. It's interesting how you, along with your high and mighty, holier than thou attitude always return to grace us after you've either beaten us; or you've had a decent result and we've had a bad one. Fortunately most of us learned long ago that all that you post is nothing more than bile. Enjoy holding the bragging rights and don't forget to buy your souvenirs.

vastman wrote: And if we'd have played against you like we did against London we'd have smashed you. If Tomkins leg had dropped off and young Wildy played like Wally Lewis we would have stuffed Wigan. Come off it, this attempt by Cas fans to revise history is getting tiresome. What makes you assume that if you'd have played that way Wakefield wouldn't have raised their game, as I said on another thread you're not that good that others can't match you. Also weren't Saints down to the bare bones? Just accept you were beaten by a better team last friday, that's how it is there are no if, but or maybe, only what happened on the day. When you next beat us you will be the better team, anything else is just wishful thinking. It's interesting how you, along with your high and mighty, holier than thou attitude always return to grace us after you've either beaten us; or you've had a decent result and we've had a bad one. Fortunately most of us learned long ago that all that you post is nothing more than bile. Enjoy holding the bragging rights and don't forget to buy your souvenirs.

Re: The positives and the negatives : Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:38 pm  

Bonzo wrote: It's interesting how you, along with your high and mighty, holier than thou attitude always return to grace us after you've either beaten us; or you've had a decent result and we've had a bad one. Fortunately most of us learned long ago that all that you post is nothing more than bile. Enjoy holding the bragging rights and don't forget to buy your souvenirs. Are they doing Millennium Magic mugs too?....................................Thought not.

Bonzo wrote: It's interesting how you, along with your high and mighty, holier than thou attitude always return to grace us after you've either beaten us; or you've had a decent result and we've had a bad one. Fortunately most of us learned long ago that all that you post is nothing more than bile. Enjoy holding the bragging rights and don't forget to buy your souvenirs. Are they doing Millennium Magic mugs too?....................................Thought not.

Re: The positives and the negatives : Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:59 pm  

tropical1 wrote:

Makinson; Gardner, Shenton, Meli, Foster; Wilkin, Lomax; Graham, Roby, McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Soliola Ashurst, Puletua.

Replacements: Moore, Dixon, Magennis, Armstrong. ,

Not as bare as they would have you believe

We were without youngquest, walker, fozzard, widders, McGoldrick, and lost huby in the game

Er, we lost Makinson in the game as well as Lomax and Moore, meaning we had to play a centre at fullback and Roby got no relief at all at hooker. We had no halfbacks at all for much of the second half and no interchanges. We now have 12 fulltime players missing, which includes all of our halfbacks. All but two are not due back for between 4 and 5 weeks.

Re: The positives and the negatives : Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:02 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Er, we lost Makinson in the game as well as Lomax and Moore, meaning we had to play a centre at fullback and Roby got no relief at all at hooker. We had no halfbacks at all for much of the second half and no interchanges. We now have 12 fulltime players missing, which includes all of our halfbacks. All but two are not due back for between 4 and 5 weeks.

Welcome to rugby league bud!

Re: The positives and the negatives : Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:56 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Er, we lost Makinson in the game as well as Lomax and Moore, meaning we had to play a centre at fullback and Roby got no relief at all at hooker. We had no halfbacks at all for much of the second half and no interchanges. We now have 12 fulltime players missing, which includes all of our halfbacks. All but two are not due back for between 4 and 5 weeks.

Can we play our home game against you now