Played Well But...

[upthetigers]

@shane2801 It's a mindset problem. I follow the tennis as well and Nick Kyrgios suffers the same problem. Gets up for the big games but struggles against opponents he should beat handily.

 

[jirskyr]

I wonder if these now two very close losses will see us miss the eight again... These are the ones we gotta win
Still smh 😠

Please please please do me a favour and stop with this logical fallacy. People say this every year "will the close losses cost us?"

ILLOGICAL!!!

Every loss costs us in the long-run. You don't get more or less penalty for a close loss or a flogging. So for every close loss that we could have won, there's also a belting that we should have avoided.

Total losses is the problem, not close losses. Most teams win 50% of close games, that's how evens out. The best teams win slightly more close games. The absolute best teams don't get involved in close games, they win handily.

So which outcome is better - 10 close losses, or 5 close losses and 5 floggings? By your logic, the 10 close losses is more troublesome? But I put it to you that even losing closely at least means you are playing a type of football that allows you to get close to winning. If you are getting belted every few weeks, clearly you don't really deserve to be playing finals footy.

Tigers can worry about converting more close games, after they get to the point where every week they keep touch with the opposition. It's something the Roosters have the luxury of focusing on.

 

[shane2801]

@upthetigers Hard to argue there mate. Based on previous seasons you're spot on. Hopefully with some luck we can sneak into 7-8th?? I can just see it now though, next week we will get trounced. Nothing makes sense with the WT.

 

[tigerbill]

We wont be consistent if we dont drop players who do nothing. Mbye and Jennings are nothing players. I can't believe these guys are playing while nofo is sidelined; you can whip the players all you want madge but if you select the wrong ones it wont work.


You’d believe it if you took the time to watch Nofo in reserves.

I don't and I do. I still think he would be miles better than Jennings in fg.

 

[avocadoontoast]

We wont be consistent if we dont drop players who do nothing. Mbye and Jennings are nothing players. I can't believe these guys are playing while nofo is sidelined; you can whip the players all you want madge but if you select the wrong ones it wont work.


You’d believe it if you took the time to watch Nofo in reserves.

I don't and I do. I still think he would be miles better than Jennings in fg.

I don’t rate Jennings particularly highly but he’s better than Nofo.

 

[izotope]

big shame as we have a tough run and really could of used the two points,
Overall the defence was very good, and i thought the attack was improved on most weeks (excluding last week) until we started to get gassed in the second half

 

[innsaneink]

I wonder if these now two very close losses will see us miss the eight again... These are the ones we gotta win
Still smh ?

Please please please do me a favour and stop with this logical fallacy. People say this every year "will the close losses cost us?"

ILLOGICAL!!!

Every loss costs us in the long-run. You don't get more or less penalty for a close loss or a flogging. So for every close loss that we could have won, there's also a belting that we should have avoided.

Total losses is the problem, not close losses. Most teams win 50% of close games, that's how evens out. The best teams win slightly more close games. The absolute best teams don't get involved in close games, they win handily.

So which outcome is better - 10 close losses, or 5 close losses and 5 floggings? By your logic, the 10 close losses is more troublesome? But I put it to you that even losing closely at least means you are playing a type of football that allows you to get close to winning. If you are getting belted every few weeks, clearly you don't really deserve to be playing finals footy.

Tigers can worry about converting more close games, after they get to the point where every week they keep touch with the opposition. It's something the Roosters have the luxury of focusing on.

Close losses cost us a spot last year... There were games we should've won but didn't, couldn't close out... Same this year.

You lump all losses together, I see the Parra loss quite differently to the panthers and last night loss... They're very different

There's an argument the top 8 rewards mediocrity and winning 50:% of your games shouldn't get you a finals berth, but it is what it is

 

[jirskyr]

I wonder if these now two very close losses will see us miss the eight again... These are the ones we gotta win
Still smh ?

Please please please do me a favour and stop with this logical fallacy. People say this every year "will the close losses cost us?"

ILLOGICAL!!!

Every loss costs us in the long-run. You don't get more or less penalty for a close loss or a flogging. So for every close loss that we could have won, there's also a belting that we should have avoided.

Total losses is the problem, not close losses. Most teams win 50% of close games, that's how evens out. The best teams win slightly more close games. The absolute best teams don't get involved in close games, they win handily.

So which outcome is better - 10 close losses, or 5 close losses and 5 floggings? By your logic, the 10 close losses is more troublesome? But I put it to you that even losing closely at least means you are playing a type of football that allows you to get close to winning. If you are getting belted every few weeks, clearly you don't really deserve to be playing finals footy.

Tigers can worry about converting more close games, after they get to the point where every week they keep touch with the opposition. It's something the Roosters have the luxury of focusing on.

Close losses cost us a spot last year... There were games we should've won but didn't, couldn't close out... Same this year.

You lump all losses together, I see the Parra loss quite differently to the panthers and last night loss... They're very different

There's an argument the top 8 rewards mediocrity and winning 50:% of your games shouldn't get you a finals berth, but it is what it is

Games we "should have won" - how do you define or limit that? The games where we were close behind the opposition at the end? The games where we led near the end? The games where we went in as large favourites? The games where we had a massive comeback? The games where our opponents had men in the bin or key injuries mid-match? The games where our opponents were weakened by suspension or rep season? All winnable scenarios, same as any match before kickoff, they are all winnable.

You may consider Penrith and Eels losses as different, but what is the material difference? Both are games we could have won because we are as good a side as either of those. One has less impact on the season just because Eels piled on tries? Eels that then went on to lose to Newcastle and get smashed by Melbourne, who we almost beat. So it's very reasonable to argue that we really should have won the Eels game, because they struggled against opposition which we have proven able to match. But you reject the Eels match as not relevant to our finals chances simply because we lost by 40?

Any game you lose is a game you lost. Doesn't matter if you lost it in the 5th minute or the 77th minute, by 1 or 50. The margin is only relevant to your opinion of how we played, and to the F/A. Melbourne's first and last tries were all worth 4 points. The first 5 minutes are as important as the last 5. Everything you do in a match leads to some other consequence.

Recall if you will the Tigers-Eels game from 2012. Tigers were up 31-0, with Benji potting a FG just before half time, then Eels scored their first try at the 66th minute. They went on to score 5 converted tries in the last 14 minutes, plus one other disallowed, to lose 31-30. Now is that a match Eels should have won? They had all the running at the end of the game, finished clearly stronger, and it begs the question how they possibly could go scoreless for 66 minutes then put 30 on in 14. So when did the Eels lose the game? Allowing Benji to take a cheap FG at 39 mins? Allowing Tigers to even get 31 points ahead? Not chancing their arm earlier? No, the answer is that they could have won by doing any of a hundred things better, but they didn't and unfortunately for them, regulation matches don't run for 85 minutes. It was a loss, same value as any other loss, same missed opportunity, same cost to their season.