Re: Bulls -v- Celtic Crusaders - non-trolls section (please) : Sun May 17, 2009 4:36 pm  

AaronBull wrote:

Conversely, if we all had the same negative attitude as you, half the posters would have thrown themselves off Beachy Head by now.

So you were happy with today's game were you and likewise your ecstatic how the seasons gone so far.

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:37 pm  

cieranblonde wrote:

They've been unlucky against Leeds earlier in the first game and were leading against Saints for a time too.

They weren't leading against us ... they were nilling us! We only managed one try against them and that was it! Celtic are not the soft option many people think they are. This win should have come a lot sooner based on how they started their season but they were hammered with injuries. At one match I remember the Sky guys saying they literally had only 17 fit men. All the rest of their squad - their big guys - were out. They've recently all come back (although they have lost Duggan for the rest of the season). So whoever got them once their big guys were match fit again was going to be in for a gruelling time because they are no pushovers. If they can stay injury-free then I don't think this will be their only win this season, not by a long chalk.

I'm dying to see them against Leeds in Wales. Oh, I will be cheering Celtic on big time! I just hope they stay injury free and then clean out the Whinos!

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:37 pm  

And its odd, becasue its really hard to say what was wrong. We were not diabolical, we didn't do any huge errors, we were just not good enough. Or should I say Celtic were better.

It's weird.

Re: Bulls -v- Celtic Crusaders - non-trolls section (please) : Sun May 17, 2009 4:37 pm  

redeverready wrote:

I know that you try and put positive spin on everything but to suggest that today was anything other than shambolic is ridiculous.

I talk about the game as I see it, and presume you do the same. I don't "try" to put any sort of "spin" on anything.

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:37 pm  

Yes, it was shambolic but the refereeing was worse.

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:38 pm  

i think if deacs sat out we would have a chance, all teams know what he will do now, when he kicks it goes straight to their fullback.

get rid and start playing like we were a few weeks ago, kicking from all over the field and by different players.

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:38 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

Yes, it was shambolic but the refereeing was worse.

The ref was poor but for both sides.

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:38 pm  

First of all, congratulations Celtic. They were tough in defence and followed a simple but extremely effective gameplan for pretty much 80 mins.

As for the Bulls..

Well I think today we saw what happens when a team isn't prepared to do the hard work and the small simple things right. We looked lethargic and lacking in any spark in attack. Our forwards continually struggled to make in roads into a tough Celtic pack who refused to roll over.

I was worried before the match then wouldn't show enough respect to Celtic and revert back to earlier form. However I did still feel we would have enough to see them off even if we would make hard work of it.

I think McNamara has to make a decision on Langley who looks badly out of sorts. As BD II pointed out at the match perhaps his shoulder isn't right and surgery has been suspended until season end?

Re: Bulls -v- Celtic Crusaders - non-trolls section (please) : Sun May 17, 2009 4:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I talk about the game as I see it, and presume you do the same. I don't "try" to put any sort of "spin" on anything.

TBH, you talk b0ll0cks.

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:40 pm  

redeverready wrote:

The ref was poor but for both sides.

Yes I agree, but we got the $hittier end of the stick.