42 replies to this topic

[Nick07]

Some strange decisions for both sides at times, but I think you just expect that now from Ronnie.

Felt we (Batley) controlled the game for the majority without looking particularly dangerous, but the Rams certainly had some chances too.

A scrappy, hard fough derby all in all. 3 crucial points for us, but also positives to be taken for Dewsbury, especially in light of your injury list. Your number 18 was excellent.

[Crown Flatter]

Really enjoyed today's match and left the ground feeling proud of how our lads played.

So did I and I think goes for most of us Tom.

...if Nicholson had caught the ball from the bomb on the stroke of half-time...

I watched Patch run forward after that kick, to put us on side; perhaps he didn't get there.

Note to CF - Matt Nicholson is not a Dual Reg player he signed for us in June when he was released by the Rhinos.
Please try to keep up.

Ooer, sorry sir!

[M Hopkins]

Considering all that's gone on over the last few weeks and Dewsburys current situation regarding players. I think dewsbury played really well. They showed a lot of heart. A Few of those players would normally struggle to get on the bench but showed what they are capable of.

It was a scrappy game with lots of errors but a tough hard fought game.

Good luck for next season to the rams. (as long as you don't beat us next season)

[Ramjet]

I thought we toughed it out well yesterday just panicked at the try line.

As for next season, who knows what's going on? I think the chairman is hoping most of the best players are snapped up by other teams rather than having to sign on the higher earners. Crossley must be off, either Fax/Fev. Faaly as well, again either fax/Fev/Batley. Hope we can hang on to a few though as I haven't heard any rumours as to who might be coming in!

[DEWSBURY TIL I DIE]

Abit of smarter play with ball in hand,stop giving away silly pens and wed of won the game....

Did well to say we had no Faal, Spicer,Crossley,Jones,Singleton, Hood and Blake. I cant help but think if these would have played wed of beat Batley today,however you have to play with players wev got and the effort from the lads was brilliant. Plenty of heart.

BIG GAME from Matty Nicholson today and Joe Chandler,both took us forward well.

[London Dick]

I was around a few who missed the teams being called out and the only question being asked was who is the number 18 for Dewsbury? I thought he had a great game. He ran with a lot of purpose and conviction and thats all you want from the forwards.

A scrappy game and one that I thought could have gone either way up until Alex Brown's breakaway try.

[STEVE P]

The amount of time we spent close to the Batley line at the beginning of the second half when we were still in the game, without really looking like scoring, highlights the fact that we have no one who has the ability to take a grip of a game and make things happen. It could be a function of the outgoing regime's apparent inability to get on with players who have a bit of cockiness about them. I don't imply any criticism of a coach from whom I think we got good value for money, but however well the likes of Nicholson play they can only be truly effective with someone who has the ability to boss a game marshalling them.
George Flanegan is partially effective in this respect, but his style involves massive bursts of energy and effort, which sometimes the others struggle to keep up with, and which occasionally leave him out of position, particularly when we are being driven back by a good kicking game.
I would like to see a couple of skilled old hands in the side next season, possibly a half back and a back 3 forward, and see what we can build around that. Probably its back to the drawing board again, the trouble being that as soon as the picture begins to look complete a couple of seasons down the line somebody with more money to spend comes along and we are back to square one.
Such is life.

[guest from down under]

I thought we toughed it out well yesterday just panicked at the try line.

As for next season, who knows what's going on? I think the chairman is hoping most of the best players are snapped up by other teams rather than having to sign on the higher earners. Crossley must be off, either Fax/Fev. Faaly as well, again either fax/Fev/Batley. Hope we can hang on to a few though as I haven't heard any rumours as to who might be coming in!

?????????

[Ramjet]

What's up GFDU? I've heard that the board are only looking to keep a handful of players. If they are our best, most consistent performers, you can probably guess who they are, then it stands to reason the board wants rid of the dead wood. Players who are on good money but are erratic or have under performed.

[grumpyoldram]

What's up GFDU? I've heard that the board are only looking to keep a handful of players. If they are our best, most consistent performers, you can probably guess who they are, then it stands to reason the board wants rid of the dead wood. Players who are on good money but are erratic or have under performed.

Thought the players were all more or less on the same money, contract wise, so that team spirit wasn't compromised. Could be wrong though.

[Daniel]

What's up GFDU? I've heard that the board are only looking to keep a handful of players. If they are our best, most consistent performers, you can probably guess who they are, then it stands to reason the board wants rid of the dead wood. Players who are on good money but are erratic or have under performed.

Who's this board you keep mentioning?

[Ramjet]

Board/management whatever you wanna call em. Those in power.

[Blind side johnny]

The amount of time we spent close to the Batley line at the beginning of the second half when we were still in the game, without really looking like scoring, highlights the fact that we have no one who has the ability to take a grip of a game and make things happen. It could be a function of the outgoing regime's apparent inability to get on with players who have a bit of cockiness about them. I don't imply any criticism of a coach from whom I think we got good value for money, but however well the likes of Nicholson play they can only be truly effective with someone who has the ability to boss a game marshalling them.
George Flanegan is partially effective in this respect, but his style involves massive bursts of energy and effort, which sometimes the others struggle to keep up with, and which occasionally leave him out of position, particularly when we are being driven back by a good kicking game.

You mean we are short on half backs I think.

I would like to see a couple of skilled old hands in the side next season, possibly a half back and a back 3 forward, and see what we can build around that. Probably its back to the drawing board again, the trouble being that as soon as the picture begins to look complete a couple of seasons down the line somebody with more money to spend comes along and we are back to square one.
Such is life.

I reckon most of us would like to see that as well.

Having players poached by bigger, richer clubs has been an issue at Dewsbury for as long as I remember - e.g. Penrith. It's just the way it goes.



You mean we are short on half backs I think.

[buford t justice]

Batley were off form and with a bit more luck you guys would have sneaked a win.

I was impressed with the Dewsbury defence and if thats you down to the bare bones then theres plenty for the new coach to work on.

Having said all that though, it really was a dreadful game to watch, dont recall seeing so many errors in a long time.

[guest from down under]

What's up GFDU? I've heard that the board are only looking to keep a handful of players. If they are our best, most consistent performers, you can probably guess who they are, then it stands to reason the board wants rid of the dead wood. Players who are on good money but are erratic or have under performed.

Apart from the fact that your post does not make sense , Your appraisal of the situation is extremely illogical . When a permanent coach is appointed it will be his task to assemble a squad to his requirements . We have several players who will be attractive to other clubs and if those other clubs can offer more rewards than we can then then who can blame them for moving on . At the moment talks are commencing with several players that the club would anticipate a new coach would like to keep , When those players requirements are known and they are acceptable to the club then those players will be open to the new coach if he wants them . If they are not acceptable then they may move on , that is the way it works .

[Ramjet]

Sorry GFDU. Perhaps I am just frustrated at what appears to be a lack of foresight from those in charge to alter the situation the team was in earlier in the season. Thereby giving an interim coach just a shade more time. Is 3 games really fare for a caretaker coach or to the players who have grafted all season?

However, on your last point, I think the club is dictating terms not the players.

[guest from down under]

If you think any club dictates terms to players you are sadly mistaken it is the other way round unfortunatly. Players agents in most cases inform the club what terms their players are looking for , then the club will either negotiate a deal or the agent will tout the player to the highest bidder . In some cases where a player is sought after by another club then that club will make an offer to the players agent which may or may not be accepted by the player .
It is largely a case of supply and demand ie, if a player cannot get the deal he wants then the price will drop until he is accommodated , likewise if a player is in demand he will recieve the best deal .

[Rambo]

Are any players already contracted for next season?

[guest from down under]

I dont know to be honest

[STEVE P]

Apart from the fact that your post does not make sense , Your appraisal of the situation is extremely illogical . When a permanent coach is appointed it will be his task to assemble a squad to his requirements . We have several players who will be attractive to other clubs and if those other clubs can offer more rewards than we can then then who can blame them for moving on . At the moment talks are commencing with several players that the club would anticipate a new coach would like to keep , When those players requirements are known and they are acceptable to the club then those players will be open to the new coach if he wants them . If they are not acceptable then they may move on , that is the way it works .

I bumped into John Bates in a shop a few months ago and we were talking about the way the teams change every season. He was saying that when he was a young player the only team he wanted to play for was his home town team and he was happy to stay at Dewsbury throughout his playing days. These days the players see the game more as a career than a paying hobby to provide a bit extra, and go where the rewards are highest, and as you say who can blame them for adopting this attitude. You will never be able to legislate to make a level playing field for everyone in this respect and there will always be some clubs with bigger cheque books than others, so no matter how much old dinosaurs like me dislike the situation it is with us to stay.

The implication elsewhere on this thread that the management of the club want to see the best players go in order to keep the wage bill down is ludicrous. Anybody who takes on the ownership and running of a club like Dewsbury can only do so out of an affinity to the club which has no basis in sound business judgement. MS wants to see the club do well just as much, and for exactly the same reasons as we all do, but he has the added burden of being the man who has to make the books balance at the end of each year.

Whoever is coaching the team next season and whatever the playing staff consists of we will still turn up for our fix of highs and lows. When we are moaning about the way the club is run we should remember that it is largely through the efforts of those we call 'the management' in a sometimes derogatory fashion that the club is still there for us to support at all.