Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Boxing Day performances


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 phildog

phildog
  • Moderator
  • 316 posts

Posted 26 December 2013 - 05:26 PM

Well, what did we all think of today's outing? Look at both teams maybe and imagine how today's performances will lead into the season. For me it was really a game of 2 halves; from the outset I thought that we were going to steamroll them, such was our dominance in the first 25 minutes. Our full back was rock solid and the pack was awesome, but we lacked 'kick on' from that dominance. Leatherbarrow however did something twice in 1 game that Black and Moore haven't done in a season, 40/20's. The narrow pitch didn't help our more expansive game. In the second half rams took over the pack dominance, although their 2 biggest players, 15 & 17, who their fans should have expected more from in my opinion, were carbon copies of Keegan Hirst, big and bustle but no go forward. their no.10 looked useful though, and Hemingway had a good game with his tactical kicking. However, like last year, Rams players all looked burly, little difference between backs and forwards, a good thing for their pitch,but think they'll get caught out by top teams on bigger pitches. I expected better things from Rams last year, and admittedly they reached the play-offs but should have done better, think they just might this time. Us? Once Jk settles on his best team and they gel, then don't think anybody will relish taking us on, tackling is already ferocious, and team spirit was their in abundance. hope both teams do well, they'll push each other to achieve.

#2 Chairman LMAO

Chairman LMAO
  • Coach
  • 3,950 posts

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:00 PM

I thought Hemingway was poor today. Made a lot of mistakes throughout.

#3 distantdog

distantdog
  • Coach
  • 2,641 posts

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:09 PM

Thought he was ok. A decent kicking game bit no danger with ball in hand. Impressed by leatherbarrow and Brennan. Plenty of time to improve and get some of those who are injured back

#4 bulldogtrev

bulldogtrev
  • Coach
  • 416 posts

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:41 PM

Batley defended well and looked solid throughout the game. Did not expect much in attack with so many new players. An encouraging display which should improve with more games.


"Anyone who does not watch rugby league is not a real person."

-John Singleton,

 

#5 Batley Bob

Batley Bob
  • Coach
  • 1,254 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:10 AM

Thought we played well in 20 min patches , defended well , but just imagine that side with the guys missing ln it , like sam scott/john davies , applegarth , miles , faal , mullalley , fairbank .

JK needs to play the untried giants in friendlies to see them play and get them used to our systems, although get the other guys back and we wont need them many times



#6 buford t justice

buford t justice
  • Coach
  • 1,838 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 12:13 PM

we looked very good defensively but the attack left a lot to be desired and we looked pretty clueless in the final third.

Lets hope it clicks as the team gels - the partnership of Leak and Leatherbarrow looks really promising and at last we have a half back in Leatherbarrow who organises the side.

Pick of the forward for me was Brennan, i think we may have found a new beast - although the whole pack played well.

The poorest player on the field was Ben Black - non existent when he was on, and the lack of ambition when he kicked for touch was flabbergasting - hopefully the blossoming Leek and Leatherbarrow partnership will keep him off the pitch this season if yesterday was anything to go by.

Overall very happy with the team as a whole, still a little light in the three quarters but once we gel we will be up there challenging again im sure.
What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law

#7 Bi11

Bi11
  • Coach
  • 542 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 01:43 PM

There wasn't a lot of skilful attacking play on show, but lots of commitment from both teams and I thoroughly enjoyed the game. And wasn't it good that the obscene, un original and juvenile chanting of recent years was largely noticeable by its' absence? 



#8 phildog

phildog
  • Moderator
  • 316 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 02:47 PM

Was quite impressed with the Giants that we didn't know, thought full back performance was very good, great catching, Aspinall ran well too, the one I'm not over impressed with is Blackmore, remember him being exposed twice at Keighley last year. Black doesn't have anything prove really, but a serious challenge from Leek might just spur him on. i think the reason we looked a bit clueless near the line was down to 2 things, firstly the narrow pitch doesn't give room to be expansive and and secondly yes the quietness of Black although he did slip a couple of good passes out which might have paid off if threequarters had had more room. On dewsbury's side their 10 and 13 were impressive, but 15 and 17, the two really big guys, just reminded me of Keegan Hirst, never firing to potential for their size. Dewsbury will be OK on their own ground, nearly all their players are burly, close to the ground players who will easily cover and defend their own patch,but won't break many pots away on bigger pitches.

#9 Keep The Faith

Keep The Faith
  • Coach
  • 809 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 03:33 PM

Was quite impressed with the Giants that we didn't know, thought full back performance was very good, great catching, Aspinall ran well too, the one I'm not over impressed with is Blackmore, remember him being exposed twice at Keighley last year. Black doesn't have anything prove really, but a serious challenge from Leek might just spur him on. i think the reason we looked a bit clueless near the line was down to 2 things, firstly the narrow pitch doesn't give room to be expansive and and secondly yes the quietness of Black although he did slip a couple of good passes out which might have paid off if threequarters had had more room. On dewsbury's side their 10 and 13 were impressive, but 15 and 17, the two really big guys, just reminded me of Keegan Hirst, never firing to potential for their size. Dewsbury will be OK on their own ground, nearly all their players are burly, close to the ground players who will easily cover and defend their own patch,but won't break many pots away on bigger pitches.

blackmore played well again jake connor and peter aspinall played well for us.

#10 DOGFATHER

DOGFATHER
  • Coach
  • 274 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 07:17 PM

we looked very good defensively but the attack left a lot to be desired and we looked pretty clueless in the final third.

Lets hope it clicks as the team gels - the partnership of Leak and Leatherbarrow looks really promising and at last we have a half back in Leatherbarrow who organises the side.

Pick of the forward for me was Brennan, i think we may have found a new beast - although the whole pack played well.

The poorest player on the field was Ben Black - non existent when he was on, and the lack of ambition when he kicked for touch was flabbergasting - hopefully the blossoming Leek and Leatherbarrow partnership will keep him off the pitch this season if yesterday was anything to go by.

Overall very happy with the team as a whole, still a little light in the three quarters but once we gel we will be up there challenging again im sure.

Spot on Buford.

 

I was also very impressed by both Chandler and Aspinall, both could make excellent centres, the latter looked like a real classy footballer. Whenever he took the ball, you could see him assessing the situation around him, who was in support, where they were and how many players were defending. He also put a couple of great hits in whilst defending.

 

Neither Black nor Finigan set the world on fire, but it's early days and it will take some players time to find form.


Edited by DOGFATHER, 27 December 2013 - 07:18 PM.


#11 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,616 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 09:39 AM

Was quite impressed with the Giants that we didn't know, thought full back performance was very good, great catching, Aspinall ran well too, the one I'm not over impressed with is Blackmore, remember him being exposed twice at Keighley last year. Black doesn't have anything prove really, but a serious challenge from Leek might just spur him on. i think the reason we looked a bit clueless near the line was down to 2 things, firstly the narrow pitch doesn't give room to be expansive and and secondly yes the quietness of Black although he did slip a couple of good passes out which might have paid off if threequarters had had more room. On dewsbury's side their 10 and 13 were impressive, but 15 and 17, the two really big guys, just reminded me of Keegan Hirst, never firing to potential for their size. Dewsbury will be OK on their own ground, nearly all their players are burly, close to the ground players who will easily cover and defend their own patch,but won't break many pots away on bigger pitches.

 

 

I ask this simply because I don't know the answer but what is the difference in width between Dewsbury's pitch and Batley's?


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#12 fredm

fredm
  • Coach
  • 1,536 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 11:18 AM

Someone posted in 2011 that the dimensions are -

Dewsbury 92 yards x 62 yards

Batley 98 yards x 65 yards.

For info Fev was posted as 88 yds x 70 yds; Hunslet 94 yds x 64 yds; and York as 90 yds x 60 yds.

Presume for Dewsbury and Batley they are still the same as I don't think any major alterations have taken place.

#13 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,616 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 12:17 PM

Someone posted in 2011 that the dimensions are -

Dewsbury 92 yards x 62 yards

Batley 98 yards x 65 yards.

For info Fev was posted as 88 yds x 70 yds; Hunslet 94 yds x 64 yds; and York as 90 yds x 60 yds.

Presume for Dewsbury and Batley they are still the same as I don't think any major alterations have taken place.

 

 

Thanks FredM


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#14 colinb

colinb
  • Coach
  • 937 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 10:59 AM

we looked very good defensively but the attack left a lot to be desired and we looked pretty clueless in the final third.

Lets hope it clicks as the team gels - the partnership of Leak and Leatherbarrow looks really promising and at last we have a half back in Leatherbarrow who organises the side.

Pick of the forward for me was Brennan, i think we may have found a new beast - although the whole pack played well.

The poorest player on the field was Ben Black - non existent when he was on, and the lack of ambition when he kicked for touch was flabbergasting - hopefully the blossoming Leek and Leatherbarrow partnership will keep him off the pitch this season if yesterday was anything to go by.

Overall very happy with the team as a whole, still a little light in the three quarters but once we gel we will be up there challenging again im sure.

Agree about Ben Black, he seemed to not have the intensity of the others. It was though, the first  hit out. Regards the lack of ambition with the touchfinders, I reckon it was down to the fact he has just had an operation on his knee, and in my opinion he shouldn't have been taking those kicks anyway---but who are we Buford????. Do you wanna tell JK or me ???????. By the way ---Good post.


WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO SWIPE THIS?

#15 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,717 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 12:10 PM


Edited by grumpyoldram, 29 December 2013 - 12:11 PM.


#16 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,717 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 12:13 PM

Accidental post - Ignore me I'm old and addled.

#17 fredm

fredm
  • Coach
  • 1,536 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 12:21 PM

The one thing that baffles me is when we get a penalty inside the opponents half we generally just kick it into touch a few yards down the line.  Why don't we kick it into touch much nearer the try line?  All we end up doing is taking 2 or 3 drives to get to where we would be if we had kicked it much longer anyway and then we would still have the 6 tackles instead of 3 or 4?

 

Maybe one of you with coaching skills can explain this?



#18 Lone Drinker

Lone Drinker
  • Coach
  • 255 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 01:06 PM

Maybe one of you with coaching skills can explain this?

 

Probably stems from the period when Gaz Moore used to miss touch on a regular basis. Note: It might not have been that regular; but it felt like it.