Jahream Bula #269

Twal & Seyfarth said:
Still win with more defence, when Bula's out. I'd blame stains anyway for those drop balls, get rid of him and our attack will sharpen up.
Click to expand...
In our last 4 games, we have conceded 100 points - 25 Points Per Game

In Bula's last 4 games with us we conceded 88 points - 22 Points Per Game

We also played easier teams without Bula, as Bula's last 2 games were against Panthers and Canberra.

Since his injury, we somehow have played a disjointed Manly back into form, were bullied by a Warriors team who just lost there two best players for the season, scraped a win against the roosters who were without TEN of there top 17 and just barely got past the team running last who lost their captain in the first 20 minutes.

So how have we won with more defence?
 
FrodoTBaggin said:
In our last 4 games, we have conceded 100 points - 25 Points Per Game

In Bula's last 4 games with us we conceded 88 points - 22 Points Per Game

We also played easier teams without Bula, as Bula's last 2 games were against Panthers and Canberra.

Since his injury, we somehow have played a disjointed Manly back into form, were bullied by a Warriors team who just lost there two best players for the season, scraped a win against the roosters who were without TEN of there top 17 and just barely got past the team running last who lost their captain in the first 20 minutes.

So how have we won with more defence?
Click to expand...
More we've stayed in the game when it counted, without Bula. But with him we tend to let the lead blow up and we let the game get away. Without Bula we make more impactful defensive plays that matter to keep us within a few points.
 
Truth is we need Bula. Turuva is better at follopwing the ball, however his tough carries he still does from the wing. Bula, however gives a much bigger threat out the back when we shift. If one of our edges develops, having Bula and Taylan May linking on one side will give us a huge attacking threat.

On the other side, I would love if it if we were advanced enough to quickly shut down these media reports. EG - Bula puts a quick report out to say "Hi all, just to ocnfirm I was at the Dogs/Dragons game last night supporting a friend. My commitment remains with the Tigers". Just quickly nip this stuff out straight away.
 
Twal & Seyfarth said:
More we've stayed in the game when it counted, without Bula. But with him we tend to let the lead blow up and we let the game get away. Without Bula we make more impactful defensive plays that matter to keep us within a few points.
Click to expand...
Our Last 4 Games:
Vs Manly Loss 10 - 28
Vs Roosters Won 30 - 28
Vs Warriors Loss 34 - 14
Vs Titans Won 21 - 20

2 Wins, 2 Losses, Point Differential = -35

Bula's Last 4 Games:
Vs Souths Loss 12 - 22 (Galvin drops potential game winning try in last few minutes, Souths score after)
Vs Cowboys Loss 28 - 32
Vs Penrith Loss 12 -16
Vs Canberra Loss 12 -16

4 Losses, Point Differential = -22

Bula didn't win a game in his last 4, yet our point differential is 50% better with him in the team. Again, we faced much better opposition in Bula's four games, not to mention this is through the Galvin drama and yet the team still looked much better despite losing.

All four of the Games Bula played in, we could have won in the last few minutes, indicating we were in the game right up until the end.

In two of our last four games, we have been out for the entirety of the game. In the other two wins, we scraped past last place and Roosters minus 10 of the top 17.

How does a couple of lucky wins against low class opposition indicate that we have "stayed in the game when it counts" more without Bula than with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 444 (members: 28, guests: 416)
Back
Top