Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 6:42 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

I take your other points but I don't agree with this personally. What's the point of being there if you serve up junk on the big stage ?

Because it's an achievement to get to a final, at which point you're only 80 minutes away from lifting a trophy. I agree that it's totally unacceptable to perform like we did in those two games, but, when we're assessing how successful a coach has been, you'd have to say that one who gets us to a final or into a play off off place is better than one who does not.

With the play-offs particularly, if we've finished in, say, 6th place, that shows a level of consistency throughout the season that has enabled us to finish in that position. It's horrible to limp out as we did, but it surely has to be better than finishing 9th after the weekly rounds.

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 6:47 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

As I said on twitter (I think), I wouldn't have wanted to get on the wrong side of AP at around 5pm on Sunday. He looked furious and was almost purple trying to keep it in.

You are Stevo and I claim my fiver.

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 6:57 pm  

airliebird,runninglate! wrote:

This is a ridiculous comment if you think an on field general or leader playmaker wouldn't of made a difference. Have you never ever watched good teams and good half's play the game?
When we conceded the first try and when emotions where running high a good half would of got everyone together, would of dictated what he wanted, all but placed the ball into forwards hands and kicked smart and all but broke his neck to make sure the ball was turned over deep in the opposition half.
It wasn't rocket science and it wasn't a hard task to implement yet somehow we still failed
Westy isn't a half but nearest to an on field general we had Sunday. 16 up whilst on we lost when off. So to say a good half or game manager wouldn't have mattered is ridiculous in my opinion

I agree that a good half could have done everything you said or at least tried to. Emphasis on tried. With the players we had out there I think it would be more a case of tried than actually achieved. You could have the best half back in the world in our team right now and I'd bet they'd still look a shambles in certain games.

Getting/developing a good half back is part of the equation to improving us but it's certainly not the actual answer IMO.

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 7:10 pm  

airliebird,runninglate! wrote:

This is a ridiculous comment if you think an on field general or leader playmaker wouldn't of made a difference. Have you never ever watched good teams and good half's play the game?
When we conceded the first try and when emotions where running high a good half would of got everyone together, would of dictated what he wanted, all but placed the ball into forwards hands and kicked smart and all but broke his neck to make sure the ball was turned over deep in the opposition half.
It wasn't rocket science and it wasn't a hard task to implement yet somehow we still failed
Westy isn't a half but nearest to an on field general we had Sunday. 16 up whilst on we lost when off. So to say a good half or game manager wouldn't have mattered is ridiculous in my opinion

Why does it need to be a halfback to do this? Why couldn't Ellis instruct this type of game plan? Your answer is to simplistic. We capitulated in defence once we'd had the couple of scuffles, Talanoa throwing the ball away was criminal.

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 7:13 pm  

Doc Brown wrote:

I agree that a good half could have done everything you said or at least tried to. Emphasis on tried. With the players we had out there I think it would be more a case of tried than actually achieved. You could have the best half back in the world in our team right now and I'd bet they'd still look a shambles in certain games.

Getting/developing a good half back is part of the equation to improving us but it's certainly not the actual answer IMO.

We were 16-0 up after 60 mins. Arguably we might have been more with better playmaking. The forwards set enough of a platform on Sunday to win the game but we didn't close the game out.

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 7:15 pm  

*1865* wrote:

Why does it need to be a halfback to do this? Why couldn't Ellis instruct this type of game plan? Your answer is to simplistic. We capitulated in defence once we'd had the couple of scuffles, Talanoa throwing the ball away was criminal.

The players who do the 'game management' tend to be half backs. No mystery there. Ellis leads by example which is what good forwards do.

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 7:16 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

You are Stevo and I claim my fiver.

I thought it was only coaches that were furious?

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 7:16 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

We were 16-0 up after 60 mins. Arguably we might have been more with better playmaking. The forwards set enough of a platform on Sunday to win the game but we didn't close the game out.

Our forwards got bossed all game. We got piggy backed up the field by the ref and couldn't stop Moore offloading the ball. Bowden, Paea, Thompson and Tuson were terrible.

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 7:18 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

The players who do the 'game management' tend to be half backs. No mystery there. Ellis leads by example which is what good forwards do.

I agree to an extent, but surely as our captain and a player who has been there and done it all, he could see what was in the offing and instruct his team accordingly. Sure, he can't stop other forwards bouncing off tackles, or prevent a winger from throwing a ball into touch, but neither can a halfback.

Re: Radford Out! : Tue May 06, 2014 7:20 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

The players who do the 'game management' tend to be half backs. No mystery there. Ellis leads by example which is what good forwards do.

That's not game management, it's fecking common sense. Ellis or anybody else, even me and you, could see that's what needed to happen. To an extent it did, we just couldn't defend.