Bulls -v- Celtic Crusaders - non-trolls section (please) : Sun May 17, 2009 4:20 pm  

Oh dear.

It had to happen someday, we were all wishing it wouldn't be us - but it was.

Still, while you can't take any positives out of losing at home, especially to a winless bottom club, the fact is that Celtic deserved their win, and not because the Bulls played all that badly. I didn't think we did. But we seem to be able to contrive narrow defeats at will this season and the writing was on the wall all game that we might do the same here.

I have tried thinking what I'd make of the game if it wasn't bottom winless club against us, and just judge the game on its merits. In that light I think Celtic put up a spirited performance, kept at t for 80 minutes (as did we0 and shaded a close contest.

In terms of marks out of 10 I would give us
8/10 for effort
6/10 for quality

It wasn't that bad a peformance, and (again) it was a game we could - and probably should - have won. It's just that when you lose yet again at home, and now to the bottom club, this is a recipe for outrage amongst the long-suffering home faithful, and I understand that. Talk of Fortress Odsal - seems much closer to Sandcastle Odsal to me.

Looking at the game in isolation, as I say we weren't that bad, and it was a decent enough effort from Celtic, but taking the rest of the season especially at home so far into consideration, it is just not good enough as a whole. If we'd got beat down in Wales, it would be a bit different. But I don't frankly know what you can say about our form, especially our home form. Giving due credit to Celtic, nevertheless if we'd applied ourselves like against Leeds, or like at Saints, we'd certainly not have lost. Bottom line is - we didn't. They didn't allow us to, but we still should have produced the answers.

Trying to work it out is a thankless task and I'm glad as hell I'm not McNamara, but if I had to point to one thing which has been a constant factor in our failures this year, it is the cheapness with which we sometimes concede points. Some days the defence is tigerish and looks sorted, but too many times it ends up leaking too many avoidable points. to be more specific, we seem to have entre halves where things take a turn for the worse, and here we went again. We conceded 22 points in teh second half, in a game where we should have been coming out fired up to g all out for a win. And once it starts to happen, we don't seem to ever be able to stop the points going in. Sure we can score some ourselves, but it seems to me this crazy inability to defend for 40 minutes at a time, is the malaise which is kicking the sh#t out of our season.

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:22 pm  

Given the length of this post I assume that you are NOT in speechless wonder then?

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:24 pm  

just wants to talk about the game without trollers like in the other topic who just want to post images and fill pages and pages of cr*p

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:28 pm  

It comes down to it and they are a fairly decent side. They've been unlucky against Leeds earlier in the first game and were leading against Saints for a time too. The half back play between Deacon and Jefferies doesn't work. It's no coincidence that our best for was when Deacon was injured and Sykes and Jefferies were at 6 and 7. I'm not astounded. I'm not angry. And I'm certainly not calling for Macca's head. But I do wish that the coaching staff would get to grips with the idea that the half back pairing isn't working and that Deacon is no where near good enough to make first choice scrum half anymore.

Re: Bulls -v- Celtic Crusaders - non-trolls section (please) : Sun May 17, 2009 4:30 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Oh dear.

It had to happen someday, we were all wishing it wouldn't be us - but it was.

Still, while you can't take any positives out of losing at home, especially to a winless bottom club, the fact is that Celtic deserved their win, and not because the Bulls played all that badly. I didn't think we did. But we seem to be able to contrive narrow defeats at will this season and the writing was on the wall all game that we might do the same here.

I have tried thinking what I'd make of the game if it wasn't bottom winless club against us, and just judge the game on its merits. In that light I think Celtic put up a spirited performance, kept at t for 80 minutes (as did we0 and shaded a close contest.

In terms of marks out of 10 I would give us
8/10 for effort
6/10 for quality

It wasn't that bad a peformance, and (again) it was a game we could - and probably should - have won. It's just that when you lose yet again at home, and now to the bottom club, this is a recipe for outrage amongst the long-suffering home faithful, and I understand that. Talk of Fortress Odsal - seems much closer to Sandcastle Odsal to me.

Looking at the game in isolation, as I say we weren't that bad, and it was a decent enough effort from Celtic, but taking the rest of the season especially at home so far into consideration, it is just not good enough as a whole. If we'd got beat down in Wales, it would be a bit different. But I don't frankly know what you can say about our form, especially our home form. Giving due credit to Celtic, nevertheless if we'd applied ourselves like against Leeds, or like at Saints, we'd certainly not have lost. Bottom line is - we didn't. They didn't allow us to, but we still should have produced the answers.

Trying to work it out is a thankless task and I'm glad as hell I'm not McNamara, but if I had to point to one thing which has been a constant factor in our failures this year, it is the cheapness with which we sometimes concede points. Some days the defence is tigerish and looks sorted, but too many times it ends up leaking too many avoidable points. to be more specific, we seem to have entre halves where things take a turn for the worse, and here we went again. We conceded 22 points in teh second half, in a game where we should have been coming out fired up to g all out for a win. And once it starts to happen, we don't seem to ever be able to stop the points going in. Sure we can score some ourselves, but it seems to me this crazy inability to defend for 40 minutes at a time, is the malaise which is kicking the sh#t out of our season.

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

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:32 pm  

cieranblonde wrote:

It comes down to it and they are a fairly decent side.

Yes, their record this season does indeed suggest that doesn't it?

cieranblonde wrote:

and were leading against Saints for a time too.

They scored 0 (zero, nil, no) points v St Helens. How then, were they leading?

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:33 pm  

Not using it as an excuse, but the 2-week break possibly came at a bad time, after 2 tub-thumping wins. It's a little hard to comprehend the Deacon/Jeffries combo being at fault, seeing as for an hour at Murrayfield they tore Wakey to shreds.

Back to the drawing board. Again.

Re: Bulls -v- Celtic Crusaders - non-trolls section (please) : Sun May 17, 2009 4:33 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.

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

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:34 pm  

At the moment, Deacon seems to be up and down and today was a down day, he got a lot wrong, and much of his kicking was simply not good enough. I get really sick of him just lobbing the ball to be easily caught by an opponent, what's that about?

I'm by no means singling him out, and I didn't think Jeffries was up to much today either, but when it ends up a tight game, every yard of territory is precious and we seem to give up far too much, far too easily, when we are in "second half mode". Deacon's erratic kicking was a factor.

: Sun May 17, 2009 4:35 pm  

Can we please have the team back that beat Saints, the one that beat Wakey the week after and defended their line like their life depended on it?

Where were they this aft?

I really don't get it.