He wasn't our worst performer by any means...

i have to say that I wasn't a big fan of BJ for the fact that he can go missing during games,why? I've no idea but it must unsettle the players around him.



Cheers for answering btw

I thought BJ at least tried today. What is evident is he plays better when he's the key man which doesn't happen when Deacon plays because everything has to go through him.

That's the nature of super league this year.



Anyone can beat anyone.



Bulls beat saints so we know how you feel.

Deacon's looking increasingly past it though he did take a couple of heavy knocks today which didn't help. Obviously clubs know that if they taregt him we lose our direction.



Deacon was never the quickest but as he gets slower he'll be easier to target. We need a new halfback for next season, no doubt at all.

Can't comment on the game, but the Celtics win has been coming for a while now. Maybe your guys just expected the win too much and so didn't come out with the fire they have done recently. There is every possibility they will string a few wins together now that the monkey is off their back (and because they have us at home in two weeks

).

Today we had the perfect chance as we had Rinaldi and Newton on the pitch at the same time it should have been Deacon taken off.

Jeez, it must be frustrating turning up not knowing what you're going to get. The side that won at the League leaders or the side that opened Celtics account. Strange!

Its hard for a player like him because there was a lack of support today, no one running on to balls for him or making spaces for him to exploit



I know he prefers second receiver but I think we need him to play at first to speed up the distribution which is how we played and beat the 2 GF teams

Worrincy did well running some good angles when he came on, we need other players to run as intelligently then we'd give the halfs more options.



Simply shipping the ball down the line is pants and far to easy to defend against.

Sorry, yes your right and he did some good work in defence

What a shame, because of a train booking mishap, I missed the game. What a shame!



I'd have applauded the Celtic players anyway, well done to them. Just seems like a season of false dawns and giant disappointments... roll on 2010!

Most teams will spend hours working on how to target the opposition's half baccks in defence. We handed them it on a plate - whose idea was it to land every single kick off on the prop directy in front of Deacon allowing an unrivalled opportunity for one of their biggest players a 20m sprint directly into our smallest. He looked like he'd been knocked out twice but we persevered with it regardless...

What else do you expect from the legend?

Yes, that was a very obvious failing on our part. It was clear from the off that they were targetting Deacs with and without the ball but we didn't respond to it and by the second half Deacs looked punch drunk to me. Their game plan seemed to be do the simple things correctly, run hard, tackle hard, take no risks in your own half, win the kicking game and stop Deacon... and it worked to a treat, the best team won.

Shouldn't that have been our game plan too.

It may well have been but they stopped whatever our game plan was.

You would have thought that was on the agenda during training this week at some stage wouldn't you!



So the question is why has that all too often, like today, not been put onto the pitch? Rugby League is not a tricky game really if you do the basics, Celtic proved that today and proved it well.

No they didn't we didn't have a structured game plan from the first minute. All we do is feed it up and down the line and hope someone makes a tackle bust.

Thats a perfectly legitimate question which needs serious considering by the powers that be at the club.

It's basic coaching to target the weakest link.

A lot of good insight above I think. When everything goes thro' Deacon at first receiver we don't look anywhere near as threatening, Jefferies defers and isn't as effective, much prefer him to be in the key position. Deacon's also been targeted throughout the season and it looks as though the cumulative effect is starting to tell and it's becoming an obvious part of the opposition gameplan. Jefferies/Sykes was far more difficult to read.



Otherwise our forwards were not at the races, Lynch and Burgess put in reasonable stints, but Scruton and Koppy were both ineffective, although neither were given much opportunity because of slow distribution from dummy half. Halley wasn't at his best either, and as red points out was out of position twice at crucial moments. I think Platt would have been the better choice today at FB (he's till getting grief without just cause in my book), although hindsight is a wonderful thing.



I expect the gameplan was - wet weather, conservative approach, knock out the sets, play the percentages and grind them down, get field position then run a couple of set moves and bob's your uncle. Once Celtic scored and their forwards were holding their own we looked bereft of ideas. Second half we should have upped the intensity, but we still played like we assumed we'd get back into it, ithout anyone knuckling down and maintaining concentration or discipline long enough for us to make that happen. Some should tell the players that if you catch the ball from a kick-off with your foot planted over the line, it's better than catching it on tippy toes a foot in front of the line and then stepping backwards!



Ah well, onwards and sidewards...

Hmm. Went to bed with it at 4-nil, thinking 'Well, we were losing to Salford at one point before putting 96 on them'. That said, not really that surprised to see the eventual scoreline. And definitely not surprised to see RAB suddenly abuzz with activity.





I take some small consolation in the cluelessness of our guest from Huddersfield who doesn't seem to have noticed that his side mustered all of four points at home to Salford, and that my Haligonian pal that is crashing on my utilty room floor will not be able to gloat too hard as the result means the death of his flatcapper dream, a winless first season for the Crusaders. But I imagine that is little in the face of watching what sounds like a pretty abject performance in the rain with 7,000 other (last two wins not bringing them back you will note).



Where from here? Tough to say. The previously mentioned Huddersfield result provides a little context, as does the season - thirteen games, nine settled by a single score. Win all those and we'd be top or near as damnit. Lose them all and we're just shy of rock bottom. As it is we're somewhere in the middle, though sadly nearer the latter.



Meh. On my way to work. First kid that mentions the scoreline's on litter duty.

Why does it. Also any way you look at it it's 9 points from a possible 26 and that's just not good enough.

What does 'not good enough' mean? Seriously?