sheer64
Well-known member
@ said:
It was amazing defense and never say die be there for your mate.
Ding dong battle in Melbourne *Spoilers
- Thread starter stryker
- Start date
It was amazing defense and never say die be there for your mate.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
But he is cheat , :bawling :bawling :bawling :bawling :bawling :bawling :laughing:
glebe_tiger
New member
Storm's second half defensive efforts were ridiculously good.
Yes should Cammy's wins be stripped for the Years they were rorting the cap…?
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
They already have :laughing:
@ said:
Not according to this… http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/players/cameron-smith/summary.html
GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
There's quite a few teams that would be envious of that defence tonight, not just us.
jirskyr
Well-known member
How does this compare with our performance against Storm? A lot of people were down that we had Melbourne in trouble but couldn't keep the pressure on for 80, got pipped with two LOF tries.
Broncos couldn't hold Melbourne out and Penrith were just defeated quite handsomely.
Personally I think we have always given the Storm some trouble in the last 5-6 years, our style seems to contrast strongly with theirs. Our style obviously means we win less than half our games and they win more than half, but head-to-head since 2009 we've won 5/13 against them which is the 4th-best result of any side.
Top 5 sides against Melbourne since 2009: Dogs (only team with > 50% wins), Manly, Warriors, Tigers, Raiders.
Penrith have beaten Melbourne (same period) once in 14 starts, and that was in 2013.
Broncos couldn't hold Melbourne out and Penrith were just defeated quite handsomely.
Personally I think we have always given the Storm some trouble in the last 5-6 years, our style seems to contrast strongly with theirs. Our style obviously means we win less than half our games and they win more than half, but head-to-head since 2009 we've won 5/13 against them which is the 4th-best result of any side.
Top 5 sides against Melbourne since 2009: Dogs (only team with > 50% wins), Manly, Warriors, Tigers, Raiders.
Penrith have beaten Melbourne (same period) once in 14 starts, and that was in 2013.
@ said:
Its a serious question as they just know how to get the job done. Week 1 was a slogfest in pouring rain, week 2 was even worse weather in NZ. Week 3 they came from behind to top a very good Brisbane side. Last week was one of their worst performances this decade yet they got the money. Tonight they made Penriths attack look rudderless and incompetent even though they had the ball for the greater majority of the second half.
Damn good side…
jirskyr
Well-known member
@ said:
Well that's not particularly constructive. We, the Tigers, should have flogged the competition-leading Storm. How exactly?
Even being on top for a decent period, they are the best team in the comp right now, why are we surprised that they fought back into the game? Why should we have flogged them, how would that have been a reasonable expectation?
Penrith had plenty of ball tonight, couldn't get it across the stripe.
Melbourne showed tonight even when you can't hang on to the pill and you and the refs gift your opposition a shed load of possession you can still hold them out and win the game comfortably.
Even camped on their own line they never looked like giving that game away, remarkable effort.
Even camped on their own line they never looked like giving that game away, remarkable effort.
@ said:
Last week they were a dreadful, error riddled mess that first 40\. They missed more tackles and dropped more balls than they normally would in 2 games yet hang in there due to our ineptness in attack. Of course they came back. They could not play any worse. Its their mental toughness to overcome adversity that got them that win. A good side would have shut them out of the game by halftime, which is what we should have done with all that possession in good position. Last weeks loss was worse for us then the losses previous. We had everything to play for, all the ball and the opposition was struggling. Should have won easily.
Fade_To_Black
New member
@ said:
Don't get in the way of the Qlders and their 5-knuckle shuffle…..... The QLD version of Penthouse features Cammy in budgies as the centrefold.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@ said:
I'm still missing something, we should have defeated the undefeated Melbourne Storm easily?
I don't care if you have a good 30 mins against the competition leaders, there's a reason why they are the competition leaders. Don't get me wrong I know Tigers threw away an opportunity, but you can't expect to "win easily" because you had a good half. We have plenty of good halves, clearly we can't take it to the next level. Or should we have also easily beaten Penrith and Raiders because we started alright against them too?
So just once again, I agree absolutely Tigers need to play 80 mins and the failure to do so is ruining our season. But there is no justification for expecting to beat Melbourne easily just because we had the upper-hand for 30-35 mins.
You said it yourself "A good side would have shut them out of the game". We are not a good side!!! So we should not have won easily, we are not good enough, we perhaps maybe could have just won by a small margin.
And in my opinion, many others too, Melbourne played badly because Tigers outplayed them for the opening salvo. It shows the ability is somewhat there but our major issue is maintaining that type of performance over a longer period.
We are a football side capable of putting lots of points on in a short period of time. That is a fact proven many times. Melbourne last week were uncharacteristically bad. Their defensive line was jagged, they slipped off tackles, they dropped the ball, they threw panicked passes that hit the ground. We had all the ball, in all the best field position and had our tails in the air, whilst the opposition was having a very rare poor game….especially defensively. Could have been up by a commanding total at half time, which should have led to a big victory.
Anyway that wasnt my original point. That point was, how good this Storm outfit is to still find a way to win when all signs pointed to them dropping that game. Their defense wasnt great but they still put enough pressure on our blokes that the errors started flowing. They didnt score expansive, skillful team tries, they had individuals who stepped up and got the job done. The only Melbourne Storm Type play was Smith's 40/20 with their big three then combining for the resultant try. Apart from that small period of brilliance, they were well below par and you could tell watching last night that Bellamy flogged them all week. Totally different side.
Anyway that wasnt my original point. That point was, how good this Storm outfit is to still find a way to win when all signs pointed to them dropping that game. Their defense wasnt great but they still put enough pressure on our blokes that the errors started flowing. They didnt score expansive, skillful team tries, they had individuals who stepped up and got the job done. The only Melbourne Storm Type play was Smith's 40/20 with their big three then combining for the resultant try. Apart from that small period of brilliance, they were well below par and you could tell watching last night that Bellamy flogged them all week. Totally different side.
Staff online
-
DempsModerator