: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:44 pm  

raceman wrote:

Why don't you say it again I don't think we understand what you're trying to say!!
But it sure sounds like some very large sour grapes.
Think you need to cut back on the alcohol and get a good nights sleep, things won't look as bad in the morning and you might just realise that you were beaten by a good side.

Yeah a brilliant side. We'll see at the end of the season how good that load of rubbish are.

: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:46 pm  

I disagree with Macca's after match comments. We didn't look rusty in attack.. we looked completely clueless and lacking any sort of leadership. The forwards are doing their bit but our half backs/hooker are woefully bad I'm afraid. Probably the most disappointing thing about tonight was the similarity to the Hull KR game. What have we been working on for the last two weeks? We saw the same big effort in defence from a few and Morrison was once again our most dangerous player.

I'm glad McNamara is confident, perhaps he could pass some of it onto Jeffries and Platt who look frightened to even touch the ball. Very disappointing tonight I'm afraid and it will do nothing to help our crowds after two very classless performances.

We need drastic improvement on that performance and it needs to happen in the next couple of months otherwise we should be planning for 2010 with a fresh approach.

: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:51 pm  

af wrote:

Saints losing at home to Hull KR suggests that no side has a right to expect to win games like these any more.

i wondered how long it was gonna take for this reasoning to surface!

: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:51 pm  

af wrote:

Disappointing result. Defence seems to be OK, attack extremely blunt. Saints losing at home to Hull KR suggests that no side has a right to expect to win games like these any more.

No it doesn't Huddersfield were continually winning the collision and I lost count the number of times they pushed through the line. IMO there was more chance of Huddersfield winning by a greater margin than us winning which is the hardest pill to swallow.

: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:53 pm  

martin @ bulls wrote:

Well that was terrible, wasn't it? I have never seen such an uncommited bunch of individuals in the whole of my life watching rugby league.

Cannot agree with that I'm afraid. We were a lot of things today but lacking effort isn't one of them IMO. For me the game was won by Huddersfield simply by the amount of players they got into the tackle. Each time they often had around 4 players on top of ours meaning much slower play the balls. The Bulls on the other hand put in some eye catching big hits but failed to control the speed of the ruck. Far too often the Hudds players were landing on their fronts and playing the ball whilst our defenders were still getting off the deck. It is something we need to sort immediately if we expect to have a chance of beating anyone!

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:01 am  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

Cannot agree with that I'm afraid. We were a lot of things today but lacking effort isn't one of them IMO. For me the game was won by Huddersfield simply by the amount of players they got into the tackle. Each time they often had around 4 players on top of ours meaning much slower play the balls. The Bulls on the other hand put in some eye catching big hits but failed to control the speed of the ruck. Far too often the Hudds players were landing on their fronts and playing the ball whilst our defenders were still getting off the deck. It is something we need to sort immediately if we expect to have a chance of beating anyone!

We were drastically lacking effort the same as we were drastically lacking commitment. There was very little commitment from the boys to each other to go out and win the game of rugby. Like you say, Hudds got numbers in the tackle, this shows that they were commited to winning the game. When the going got tough, very few of our players showed the effort or commitment. This is very bad.

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:07 am  

martin @ bulls wrote:

We were drastically lacking effort the same as we were drastically lacking commitment. There was very little commitment from the boys to each other to go out and win the game of rugby. Like you say, Hudds got numbers in the tackle, this shows that they were commited to winning the game. When the going got tough, very few of our players showed the effort or commitment. This is very bad.

Your not from Hull by any chance.

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:10 am  

redeverready wrote:

Your not from Hull by any chance.

Banktop

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:21 am  

Baron Greenback wrote: What was the penalty count this evening?

No idea but seen as the fat scouse scum bag had us marching back 20 metres at the play the ball and the giants scored their first try after the fat scouser waved the tackle count (which was a disgracefully bad decision) the giants did pretty well out of the ref.

And do you think maybe Huddersfield are a better side than you give them credit for?

No they are awful to loose to a team that bad at home really is the end of Macnamara. I have pretty much been someone that has been classed as a big macca supporter but after tonight that is no more. He has to go. That was crap. The giants should not make the play offs they really are terrible. So to lose to a team that bad at home is simply unacceptable as the thread title aplies enough is enough.


ooh haha thats ace you should be on stage with comedy like that ,

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:26 am  

I went to the game as a neutral and thought Huddersfield were outstanding - bags of enthusiasm with Luke Robinson epitomising the teams attitude.

Bradford looked too big and strong in the first 20 minutes but seemed to be lacking in the halves to me and then the performance definitely began to fade. Once Deacon went off things went from bad to worse.

With great forwards like Menzies, Morrison and Burgess the Bulls had loads of go forward. As soon as the ball went out to the backs the Giants defence looked realy comfortable and hardly ever threatened.

In my opinion the Bulls desperately need a creative stand off and maybe things will improve quickly.

As a neutral I thought that Steve Ganson handled the game well and I can't recall any bad decisions to be honest.