Player stats from tonight

[Guest]

The thing is, is that even with them having 5 players out vs. our 2 out. We still weren't as good a side on paper. We had a far more inexperienced team. Our roster is just plain woeful. And this is most likely because we have nearly $1,000,000 playing for other teams.

We played better than them, deserved to win. I think every one of our players performed admirably. I cannot really fault anyone in particular for efforts outside of moments. Clearly had them playing well. It just sucks they weren't rewarded for it.

I thought Naiqama was exceptional at fullback. I didn't feel like we missed Tedesco at all out there which was a massive surprise. All the young guys stood up. Given we'll be having our pick of them mixed with some actual talent coming in next year the signs are very positive for 2018.

I was devastated last night but this morning I'm not feeling so bad.

Eisenhuth, Naiqama, Nofoaluma, Watene-Zelezniak, Liddle were our best imo but many could get a mention. Grant should have got more minutes, he has really come good the past few weeks. I think we should re-sign him.

Grant was injured last night Mac, hence why he only played 30 minutes. Had ice on his hammy after the game.

 

[cktiger]

The stats don't pick up blokes like Sue & Grant where blokes run straight past them because they are too slow **or have given up chasing**, or where they hold on while being dragged 15 metres by the opposition players.

You missed the worst offender… Lovett.
How many times does he miss a tackle and give up or - on the other hand if the ball goes the opposite direction he stands around like a log without following the play?
I keep trying to see any positives in him being in first grade but they just don't present themselves.

 

[MacDougall]

The thing is, is that even with them having 5 players out vs. our 2 out. We still weren't as good a side on paper. We had a far more inexperienced team. Our roster is just plain woeful. And this is most likely because we have nearly $1,000,000 playing for other teams.

We played better than them, deserved to win. I think every one of our players performed admirably. I cannot really fault anyone in particular for efforts outside of moments. Clearly had them playing well. It just sucks they weren't rewarded for it.

I thought Naiqama was exceptional at fullback. I didn't feel like we missed Tedesco at all out there which was a massive surprise. All the young guys stood up. Given we'll be having our pick of them mixed with some actual talent coming in next year the signs are very positive for 2018.

I was devastated last night but this morning I'm not feeling so bad.

Eisenhuth, Naiqama, Nofoaluma, Watene-Zelezniak, Liddle were our best imo but many could get a mention. Grant should have got more minutes, he has really come good the past few weeks. I think we should re-sign him.

Grant was injured last night Mac, hence why he only played 30 minutes. Had ice on his hammy after the game.

Ah that explains that. Hope he is alright for next week.

 

[ricksen]

We had more than two out - Woods and Ted at Origin obviously, but both starting back rowers (Lawrence and Aloiai) were out injured, as well as Idris.

 

[tig_prmz]

The thing is, is that even with them having 5 players out vs. our 2 out.

We played better than them, deserved to win.

i dont think it's as simple as 5 vs 2\. They had to replace those 5 players and their 5 depth players probably outshone most of ours. Those 5 players are the best in their position. This was a team that had Maloney, Fifita, Bird, Gragam and Holmes out.

It's debatable whether we played better. It was 12-5 line breaks against us. Penalties about 12-5 for us as well. We had all the help but Sharks depth players were just hungrier and better than us and THAT hurts. So idk if we deserved to win, but the Sharks were 10x better than us.

 

[MacDougall]

The thing is, is that even with them having 5 players out vs. our 2 out.

We played better than them, deserved to win.

i dont think it's as simple as 5 vs 2\. They had to replace those 5 players and their 5 depth players probably outshone most of ours. Those 5 players are the best in their position. This was a team that had Maloney, Fifita, Bird, Gragam and Holmes out.

It's debatable whether we played better. It was 12-5 line breaks against us. Penalties about 12-5 for us as well. We had all the help but Sharks depth players were just hungrier and better than us and THAT hurts. So idk if we deserved to win, but the Sharks were 10x better than us.

If you want to split hairs over rosterish type arguments you can argue that we had our highest paid player (Farah), a backrower (Sironen), another backrower (Lawrence), another backrower (Aloiai) and then Tedesco and Woods out.

Then there is the fact they have a better roster than us anyway (they are the premiers).

I don't think they were better than us at all. We played better. Better completions, better discipline, better structure. They beat us in moments as I said. The moments resulted in the line breaks, which you are leaning on to make your case. 10x better than us pleeease. If it makes you feel better to rag on our reggies then whatever.

Their depth players were the likes of Tagataese, Beale, Mortimer, Capewell etc. We had rookies. They had seasoned players as depth.

 

[tig_prmz]

The thing is, is that even with them having 5 players out vs. our 2 out.

We played better than them, deserved to win.

i dont think it's as simple as 5 vs 2\. They had to replace those 5 players and their 5 depth players probably outshone most of ours. Those 5 players are the best in their position. This was a team that had Maloney, Fifita, Bird, Gragam and Holmes out.

It's debatable whether we played better. It was 12-5 line breaks against us. Penalties about 12-5 for us as well. We had all the help but Sharks depth players were just hungrier and better than us and THAT hurts. So idk if we deserved to win, but the Sharks were 10x better than us.

If you want to split hairs over rosterish type arguments you can argue that we had our highest paid player (Farah), a backrower (Sironen), another backrower (Lawrence), another backrower (Aloiai) and then Tedesco and Woods out.

Then there is the fact they have a better roster than us anyway (they are the premiers).

I don't think they were better than us at all. We played better. Better completions, better discipline, better structure. They beat us in moments as I said. The moments resulted in the line breaks, which you are leaning on to make your case. 10x better than us pleeease. If it makes you feel better to rag on our reggies then whatever.

Their depth players were the likes of Tagataese, Beale, Mortimer, Capewell etc. We had rookies. They had seasoned players as depth.

apologies, i missed the "moments" bit and agree with you partially about it.

however, point still stands. The sharks were much better than us. We had better discipline, but we had no structure. There was no threat about us at all. All our points came off the back of field position which were on the back of penalties (half luck, half sharks' indiscipline). We didn't deserve to win simply coz we played crap- call it inexperience, bad structure, lack of game plan, whatever; the fact that sharks played their worst game of the season has nothing to do with it.

I'm not ragging on all the players and my arguement isn't based on the roster either.

 

[larrycorowa]

There are some ridiculous comments on here with regards to woods. If he plays we win, we just lacked some experienced heads in crucial moments. The most pleasing aspect is that some of our younger brigade were out better players. Liddle and the two young back rowers were great.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

There are some ridiculous comments on here with regards to woods. If he plays we win, we just lacked some experienced heads in crucial moments. The most pleasing aspect is that some of our younger brigade were out better players. Liddle and the two young back rowers were great.

Credit where credit is due - Liddle is coming on. Next he has learn beautiful grubbers and field goals.

 

[Russell]

The thing is, is that even with them having 5 players out vs. our 2 out.

We played better than them, deserved to win.

i dont think it's as simple as 5 vs 2\. They had to replace those 5 players and their 5 depth players probably outshone most of ours. Those 5 players are the best in their position. This was a team that had Maloney, Fifita, Bird, Gragam and Holmes out.

It's debatable whether we played better. It was 12-5 line breaks against us. Penalties about 12-5 for us as well. We had all the help but Sharks depth players were just hungrier and better than us and THAT hurts. So idk if we deserved to win, but the Sharks were 10x better than us.

If you want to split hairs over rosterish type arguments you can argue that we had our highest paid player (Farah), a backrower (Sironen), another backrower (Lawrence), another backrower (Aloiai) and then Tedesco and Woods out.

Then there is the fact they have a better roster than us anyway (they are the premiers).

I don't think they were better than us at all. We played better. Better completions, better discipline, better structure. They beat us in moments as I said. The moments resulted in the line breaks, which you are leaning on to make your case. 10x better than us pleeease. If it makes you feel better to rag on our reggies then whatever.

Their depth players were the likes of Tagataese, Beale, Mortimer, Capewell etc. We had rookies. They had seasoned players as depth.

apologies, i missed the "moments" bit and agree with you partially about it.

however, point still stands. The sharks were much better than us. We had better discipline, but we had no structure. There was no threat about us at all. All our points came off the back of field position which were on the back of penalties (half luck, half sharks' indiscipline). We didn't deserve to win simply coz we played crap- call it inexperience, bad structure, lack of game plan, whatever; the fact that sharks played their worst game of the season has nothing to do with it.

I'm not ragging on all the players and my arguement isn't based on the roster either.

Sounds like you are raggin on players and the team to me.

As stryker mentioned they had 3 players that have played as many games as our whole team. They put in a 100% effort and due to a couple of guys with inexperience they faltered in the last few minutes. What the hell do you expect? A state of origin performance against the reining premiers from a team of nobodys with very little experience. You will never be satisfied by the way you go on.

10 x better than us - I didn't think the score was 220 to 22\. You do exaggerate.

Credit where credit is due - and don't come back with the stupid line "You are just accepting mediocrity"

 

[larrycorowa]

Everyone was ragging on liddle last week….

 

[jadtiger]

There are some ridiculous comments on here with regards to woods. If he plays we win, we just lacked some experienced heads in crucial moments. The most pleasing aspect is that some of our younger brigade were out better players. Liddle and the two young back rowers were great.

Agree 100% you have to put things in perspective