According to Tim Sheens

Tiger_heart

Tiger_heart

Well-known member
the team lacked hunger - might I suggest, Tim, that for once you put up your hand as well, admitting to questionable team selections, stubborness in sticking with certain players and perhaps past your use by date?

We live in hope. :sign:
 
@Tiger_heart said:
the team lacked hunger - might I suggest, Tim, that for once you put up your hand as well, admitting to questionable team selections, stubborness in sticking with certain players and perhaps past your use by date?

We live in hope. :sign:
Click to expand...

Ha, good one mate, stubbornness? half the team was missing. He was spot on, there was no effort in defence and if you can't defend your never in the game
 
sheens has built this culture.
players know they can just go through the motions for months and nothing will be done during the game or after it.
 
@hybrid_tiger said:
@dermo said:
half the team was missing.

Souths were missing their two best players but of course not a word about this…
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That correct. Blaming missing players is a total cop out. Some of those missed tackles yesterday were under 12's stuff.
I want to know why there was no hunger as Sheens puts it. We are at the pointy end of the season, are in a dog fight just to make the 8 with sides all around us on the improve, are desperate for a win, playing one of our greatest rivals who stole a win off us earlier this year and who were missing 2 very dangerous attacking weapons and…..there was no hunger?

Pathetic.
 
It is simple. Their coach has been in the media all week lining up the excuses, pimping the amount of injuries we have to all and sundry.

When you have the theme of the week being excuses you are bound to fall back on them
 
It's not so much about the what (lack of effort), but rather the why? It happens way too often.

Plus we often don't bounce back from a FNQ trip, not tough enough mentally IMO. Maybe the two are related?
 
Isn't part of the job description of a coach to motivate the players and get them mentally prepared each week?
 
@smeghead said:
It is simple. Their coach has been in the media all week lining up the excuses, pimping the amount of injuries we have to all and sundry.

When you have the theme of the week being excuses you are bound to fall back on them
Click to expand...

A coach out of ideas?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
@hybrid_tiger said:
@dermo said:
half the team was missing.

Souths were missing their two best players but of course not a word about this…
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You've taken what i said completely out of context. The OP was criticising Sheens for his apparent stubbornness with his player selections, what i meant is with half the team missing he hardly had alot of choice
 
I can see what you are saying but he had one big choice, where to play the SOO hooker and captain of our club and he clearly got it wrong.

If we had come out with Farah at hooker and still lost I dont think you would find many queries as to why he wasn't put at halfback
 
Again it comes back to his team selections. All year we've been pulling out hair out over his choices. He can't stick with a halves combination, moves the country's second best hooker to half etc etc. I'm not looking forward to the team selection tomorrow with big Keithy due back. Who does he drop back to the bench? If Fulton is relegated this place will go into meltdown.
 
Our changes were not that drastic. Our forward pack was predominantly untouched with the exception of Galloway and Farah. Iosefa can cover Farah at hooker, or they can alter roles on the field.

So this does not explain why Sutton was able to make to busts through the middle with missed tackles by Blair and Farah. Also, two tries from dummy half?? Hardly a lack of ability on the part of the replacement backs!

That team should have performed much better, and in the first 20 minutes they proved that they can.

We were not ready to perform and showed no energy in defence. Just like when we start the season. Who knows, if we had have been ready from Round one we might have one a few more early season games and not been in this position at all.
 
@Tigersmurf said:
Our changes were not that drastic. Our forward pack was predominantly untouched with the exception of Galloway and Farah. **Iosefa can cover Farah at hooker**, or they can alter roles on the field.
Click to expand...

He can, but that's all he is, a cover, he's nowhere near the level of Farah. We lose so much out of dummy half without Farah there.
 
@dermo said:
@hybrid_tiger said:
@dermo said:
half the team was missing.

Souths were missing their two best players but of course not a word about this…

You've taken what i said completely out of context. The OP was criticising Sheens for his apparent stubbornness with his player selections, what i meant is with half the team missing he hardly had alot of choice
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sheens had the choice to leave Farah at #9, yet still moved him to #7 despite publicly admitting it would weaken yet another position. You can't blame that on injuries, just stubbornness (as the OP correctly pointed out) in that Farah at #7 has never work yet Sheens still persists with it.
 
Benji at 7 has never worked.
Farah at 7 has never worked.
Sheens doesn't want to use Miller, Humble or Moltzen at 7.
What does this mean?
We need a new 7.
 
@smeghead said:
I can see what you are saying but he had one big choice, where to play the SOO hooker and captain of our club and he clearly got it wrong.

If we had come out with Farah at hooker and still lost I dont think you would find many queries as to why he wasn't put at halfback
Click to expand...

That's exactly it

And sheens is stubborn for not leaving moltzen or miller there longer.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
[quote="hybrid_tiger"
Sheens had the choice to leave Farah at #9, yet still moved him to #7 despite publicly admitting it would weaken yet another position. You can't blame that on injuries, just stubbornness (as the OP correctly pointed out) in that Farah at #7 has never work yet Sheens still persists with it.

Spot on Hybrid, and the fact that we could only score 6 points against a slightly depleted Souths side (whom I might add defended really well), emphasises the fact that Humble deserved a shot.

Is Benji still a "playmaker?" He certainly isn't a ball runner. So what is he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,636 (members: 13, guests: 1,623)
Back
Top