Re: Danny Williams : Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:39 pm  

Fui Fui has been sent off! haha

Re: Danny Williams : Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:36 pm  

What a game! And a huge congratulations to Siddal. Really did themselves, the NCL and Amateur rugby league very very proud!

Re: Danny Williams : Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:41 pm  

Only watched 1st half but Siddal's defence was outstanding

Re: Danny Williams : Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:18 pm  

Perhaps Siddal should have replaced us in CH

Re: Danny Williams : Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:38 pm  

Stand up Siddal players - you were total class
Siddal defence was phenomenal; they really deserved to stay in the cup after that performance, genuinely sorry they didnt win that one. Toronto look to have a simple style of play - send three tacklers in every time and slow the ball play down; lay on as much as possible, put cheap shots in and try and get away with as many high-shots as possible.
Cant blame Siddal for being upset with some of those referee decisions his first half was appalling. Maybe Toronto are the RFL's new favourites

Re: Danny Williams : Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:39 pm  

Smack him Jimmy wrote:

Stand up Siddal players - you were total class
Siddal defence was phenomenal; they really deserved to stay in the cup after that performance, genuinely sorry they didnt win that one. Toronto look to have a simple style of play - send three tacklers in every time and slow the ball play down; lay on as much as possible, put cheap shots in and try and get away with as many high-shots as possible.
Cant blame Siddal for being upset with some of those referee decisions his first half was appalling. Maybe Toronto are the RFL's new favourites

Bit of a rubbish analysis of the game to be honest. Conditions were a massive leveler and it justified Siddal's decision to not play the game at Halifax's ground. Melbourne Storm would have struggled on that pitch. For me Siddal's defence was outstanding but Toronto knew they were full time, fitter and all they needed to do was slow the ruck (why would anybody want a fast ruck against them anyway?) and their fitness would come up trumps in a boggy game.

Great advert for amateur RL. But Toronto's yards made after contact made the difference as well as fitness levels. But credit to Siddal! As an amateur player I dread playing them but always want to see the underdog do well.

Re: Danny Williams : Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:33 pm  

Bulls Boy 2011 wrote:

Bit of a rubbish analysis of the game to be honest. Conditions were a massive leveler and it justified Siddal's decision to not play the game at Halifax's ground. Melbourne Storm would have struggled on that pitch. For me Siddal's defence was outstanding but Toronto knew they were full time, fitter and all they needed to do was slow the ruck (why would anybody want a fast ruck against them anyway?) and their fitness would come up trumps in a boggy game.

Great advert for amateur RL. But Toronto's yards made after contact made the difference as well as fitness levels. But credit to Siddal! As an amateur player I dread playing them but always want to see the underdog do well.

Honest or not - I dont give a shoite whether you think my analysis is rubbish or not.
You agree Siddal's defence was outstanding.
You agree that Toronto slowed the ruck down.
The pitch was the same for both sides; a faster ruck would have worked against the heavier side.
So by all means give your view of the game - but saying mine is rubbish is just a cheap personal attack.