Sheens' Blunder

User avatar
steven_tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:31 pm
Location: Griffith

Sheens' Blunder

Post by steven_tiger » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:04 pm

Biggest issue tonight was a lack of another front rower on the bench!

Already missing Galloway and Payten, Sheens opts to not use Shirnack (who I think has been quite good in first grade) and put it Mataka.

Don't get me wrong, Mataka is a good player, but prop forward he isn't.

This, coupled with Fifita starting (which isn't his go yet) was a bad move.

Moors did pretty well, but gee he looks good when he's out wide. He looked like he was going to cut them up a couple of times when he was running out wider tonight.

We desperately need our big boppers back!
Image


tiger tigers
Member
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:49 am

Post by tiger tigers » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:06 pm

fifita had a great game ....what game do some of you guys watch ......

ron burgandy
Member
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 4:24 pm

Post by ron burgandy » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:09 pm

no pop off the bench, didnt utilise moors enough.

i still maintain we have no need for fitzy or daniela on the bench another big forward would of helped tonight
"Just let the haters hate"

shout out to kul and the rest of the admin and mods

User avatar
steven_tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:31 pm
Location: Griffith

Post by steven_tiger » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:13 pm

tiger tigers wrote:fifita had a great game ....what game do some of you guys watch ......
I didn't say that at all. I believe he is better off the bench after Gibbs and Galloway (or whoever) have laid the platform.

He was solid tonight, but none of our forwards really got on top of theirs (partly due to the amount of defence we had to do).
Image

red dogg
Member
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat 18 Jul, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: northern beaches

Post by red dogg » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:17 pm

fifita played very well... such a big ask to start and play in galloways boots in his first yr.... he continues to impress me every week.
i also beleive moors played well too... he didnt get allot of chances in attack thanks to jarrad maxwell(14th dogs player)


tigerden

Post by tigerden » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:22 pm

lets not get to dispirited people.. yeah we were a little flat tonight but what do you expect you lose your halfback and 2 forwards back to back..coupled with the 2 toughest road trips canberra and townsville which we both won..tonights effort was fantastic in the circumstances and remember we were still in the game up until the last 15 mins so dont be to hard on the sheens and the boys.

tiger jim
Member
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 4:51 pm

Post by tiger jim » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:32 pm

Did not see the first half so cannot comment on the full game but for me i would put Ryan back on the wing and young Mullaney at fullback not saying Ryan went bad not at all caught out of positon a couple of times and seems to have trouble comming into the backline and i would have him in my team anytime, but we do a fullback who is a fullback .The last try the dogs scored Beau made the tackel in the forward line no fullback But what i saw great effort

User avatar
willow
Member
Member
Posts: 33020
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: The Village

Post by willow » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:35 pm

Schirnack suffered a knee injury prior to the game apparently and was replaced by Mataka. Fifita was busy in defence but had limited opportunity in attack with all the tackling the Tigers were forced to do. They looked flat and I reckon the last 2 weeks heavy encounters wore them down in the end.

User avatar
tigergirlz
Member
Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:09 pm

Post by tigergirlz » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:37 pm

The blunder was the game plan that had the Tigers never attacking the line in the first half and tackling forever - just like last week.

tiger tigers
Member
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:49 am

Post by tiger tigers » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:40 pm

tigergirlz wrote:The blunder was the game plan that had the Tigers never attacking the line in the first half and tackling forever - just like last week.
how were they suppose to attack when they had no pill in their oppositions 20......when you make 10 more sets in a half , you usually have nothing left for your attack .....
we definately got no favors from the pink ladies either ......

User avatar
tigergirlz
Member
Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:09 pm

Post by tigergirlz » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:47 pm

Agree with the refereeing problems. But the last two weeks the Tigers rarely play a settling set, with a big kick to turn the opposition around so they are running of their own goal line. The fancy last play often ends up with one of the other teams backs running the ball back at speed about 40 metres out for the first tackle. The fancy play can mean lost ball as well, and there was a fair bit of that tonight as well.

supercoach
Member
Member
Posts: 7080
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 2:38 pm

Post by supercoach » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:53 pm

In the first half we tackled ourself out of the game,partly due to some dumb plays and some very average refing. Come the second half their was no petrol in the tank. No Galloway,no payten, no moltzen makes it very hard especially after a hard month. I dont think Sheens can be blamed at all

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 29333
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Perugia Italy..

Post by Geo. » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:56 pm

willow wrote:Schirnack suffered a knee injury prior to the game apparently and was replaced by Mataka. Fifita was busy in defence but had limited opportunity in attack with all the tackling the Tigers were forced to do. They looked flat and I reckon the last 2 weeks heavy encounters wore them down in the end.
Willow...... Fifita carted it up with purpose every time......he was great

Sheens blunder was going into the game with multiple first recievers at different stages and expecting it to gel.....

That and Benji @ half....
Wests Tigers don't need a Coach.. The playing group has taken over..

User avatar
prattenpark
Member
Member
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue 02 Mar, 2010 4:02 pm

Post by prattenpark » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:58 pm

I don't think Sheen's blundered.
As i said in another thread:
No possession in the first half was thanks mainly to Maxwell. That guy is atrocious. I actually think he is biased against us. He just seems to ignore the rule book when it comes to us - Marshall tackled without the ball, penalising Gibbs for laying on the player after dominant tackle was called, giving them 6 again when we didn't come within cooee of the ball. The lists goes on....
We tackled our hearts out and were gone by half time. That it was only 6 nil, and that from a fluky kick and possible knock on, was a real testament to our defence.
I'm prepared to right the second half off. After last weeks effort in the heat, the first half defence tonight and team changes resulted in lots of dropped ball and poor decisions in attack - non effectual kicks and trying to score on every play. I'll put that down to fatigue.
There were just too many things against us.
I think we just have to pick ourselves up and start planning for next week - we have an 8 day turnaround so should be better prepared and hopefully Galloway will be back. Not sure what to do at 7. Blake had a really disappointing debut. I feel for the guy, but am also not sure if he is up to it yet.
Must admit though, the thought did cross my mind to take Maxwell out at the end of the game. A lifetime ban would almost be worth sidelining him for a while. I really hope the Tigers make some sort of official complaint at least. He really has got it in for us.

edited to add: on a positive - Blake Ayshford defended really well on Morris, and Lawrence likewise on Idris. Dogs had to rely on scoring from kicks predominantly.
If we are a top 4 contender, we will bounce back next week and smash the Panthers and then do the Roosters at home
Last edited by prattenpark on Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hadds75
Member
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 9:47 pm

Post by hadds75 » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:03 pm

Our bench is consistantly ordinary.

WE are two front rowers down tonight and we play the first 60 minutes with 15 men.

pug306

Post by pug306 » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:08 pm

Can't fathom Sheens' use of the bench,
if he didn't know you need size against the dogs then he shouldn't be coaching in first grade.

We needed 4 forwards on the bench,
& all four bench players used is first half,
then we might have cleared our own 40 metre zone more than once.

Thaiger14
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:09 pm

Post by Thaiger14 » Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:19 pm

A few issues I had:

-Why would Sheens play Farah at first receiver during a stage of the 2nd half when the momentum of the game from both sides was clearing dominating from the ruck? Quick play the balls and one up running from dummy half was the common theme and we had our most dangerous player at first receiver? Yes good move sheens
-I don't see what Tim Sheens fascination is with Fitzhenry. He played average tonight better then others admittidely, but does average mean you deserve a first grade jersy over other potential up and comers? He offers NOTHING to the team and is taking a position a younger player could fill and gain experience in. Sheens move on from this 'utility' metanlity that you have because I assure you it will not get you into a final series.
-Playing no props on the bench - if you are going to play a light weight (Daniella) than at least give someone like Tuamata a run - at least he will offer something to the team that someone in the starting lineup already doesnt have.


With decisions like this it is no wonder sheens has only taken us to the final series once in his 7 year reign and why we are one of two teams who have not made the finals since 2005. Its not good enough

User avatar
hybrid_tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Latchem Robinson Stand

Post by hybrid_tiger » Sat 17 Apr, 2010 2:12 am

Why was Shirnack replaced by a wide running second rower?

Post Reply