: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:09 pm  

We never play well at Wakefield, i dont know if its the ground or what? but we always seem to fall apart there? its only early days lets not get to worked up.

: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:16 pm  

wincommandercrad wrote:

these are the teams we should be beating whats is going on!

WTF are you talking about?!

Why in God's name should we be expecting to beat a Wakefield side that were a division above us last year, particularly at their place?!?

In future, 'remove head from ar.se before posting' may be a useful rule to consider?

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:25 am  

Luelui for you was excellent today we are crying out for a player like that at Wakefield. 1st half you guys were very poor but the 2nd half you knocked it around well.

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:35 am  

How can a ground that has been there over a century be described as soul less? Belle Vue is many things but it ain't soul less! Bloody hell!

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:07 am  

Fred Gee wrote:

Thought first half we were looking at forty to fifty even with our depleted side, you certainly looked a few yards off the pace. I think a better team than us would have took you to the cleaners.

For me the truest write-up on the thread, if Rooney & Brough had have been playing we'd have been spanked out of sight by half time. We were awful, as it was it was down to Drew to run rings around us (as usual) & let no-one be fooled by the 2nd half "comeback" against a side who knew that the win was safely in the locker, too many poor peformances today & a full strength Wakefield side would have embarrased us today.

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:48 am  

Thought you looked good when you had Paul, Alker and Myler on the pitch at the same time. There was some great play from these guys. I could not understand why your coach did not keep them all on for longer, unless there was an injury Paul should have stayed on.

These three working together will cause problems for any side.

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:54 am  

Cannot underestimate how improtant the kicking game is particularly in the 1st 20 mins - ours was poor. Our forwards never got on the front foot, they only ever got the ball on our own line, and barely made the half way.

Second half was better, we played a certain style of panic football when we thought there was time to get back in the game, but even this did not come off.

Overall the game was lost in the 1st half. No lack of effort, beaten by a better team on the day, poor kicking game - take your pick.

Could have been 40, so well done for keeping the points difference down!
Strange atmosphere in the ground, quietest 6k i've ever heard. Wakefield were all over us and the fans were silent. Salford fans were also quiet, but we had very little to shout about!

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:43 am  

If our second half team had turned up at 3:30 we might have given Wakefield a game, but in the event the game was well and truly lost at half time. For the first forty minutes we played one man rugby, failed to make ground, gave Wakefield ten yards to play football in every time they got the ball and just looked completely out of our depth. We made Wakefield look so much in control it was embarrassing. We gave away silly penalties and didn't threaten their line at all.

In the second half we competed. We looked interested; we played with a certain amount of desire; we played some expansive rugby and gained good field positions - though our defence against their kicking game didn't improve much!!

What I can't understand is why we can be so very different in two halves of rugby. Any ideas? We do need to play for eighty minutes (at our second half standard!) if we are to achieve anything though.

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:15 am  

can some one please tell me why when we are kicking from a restart that we kick to the same player

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:24 am  

Well said - there is a complete lack of variety on what we do.