Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RogerT

Boxing Day match

Recommended Posts

Couple if not 3 of those trialists wouldn't be out of place in this match if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Keep The Faith said:

both sides have agreed to 20 players no walker or Galbraith we have enough without the trialist I guess 

No brown or lunt either


IMG_0583.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very pragmatic approach from Craig regarding the friendlies.

 

Merry Christmas everyone.


Touch Rugby W(h)inger and part-time Super Hero (Thursday mornings by appointment) :superman:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BATLEY BULLDOGS RLFC :bb:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig knows how important this game is to Dogs fan, whatever he says about the game being in the way, players still picking stuff up, seeing where we are etc and I don't see the players not wanting a win. We go in to the game of 20 players with just 20, that includes Bravo if fit!! So, a trialist might just make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, enough there for CL to chew on...a hybrid between Craig's new broom and Diskin's madness, unfortunately, especially in the 2nd half, the madness held the upper hand. Some players who started the game with the new broom in mind reverted to type after putting us firmly in the driving seat in the first 35 minutes. There was old fashioned Bulldog tackling and keenness 1st half, disappeared in the 2nd. True, Dewsbury were never going to score anywhere near our posts but we got caught out wide which has been our failing for years. 2nd half, what were those 1st, 2nd and 3rd tackle kicks about, and pressure passes which sold receivers short? Hooley did well, both halves showed some quickness of thought and occasional action, Leaky was Leaky, Blagborough put a fair shift in, Morton solved a centre problem, but other than that other players have to look at their own contributions and where they can do better. On the whole 14-14 just about did us a favour.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each side had their moments and I will take some positives from the game. I think the atmosphere has gone from the boxing day game and more time is spent watching the referee ?


Touch Rugby W(h)inger and part-time Super Hero (Thursday mornings by appointment) :superman:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BATLEY BULLDOGS RLFC :bb:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merry crimbo to all gallant youths.

Having enjoyed a week in the sun with family at playa paraiso tenerife I really didn't fancy throwing the shorts in the loft with the cases then traipsing up to the teabag.

Regardless of entrance fee, weather or interchange the fixture is more tradition and compulsion rather than choice.

I like the look of our squad and with only 5 recognisable rams players should we of put more points down. Questions anyone care to answer....

Did we look different to diskins play.

Lads look fit and hungry or just going through the motions.

6 and 7 look dangerous? Why no lunt

Honest crowd number split by allegiance

Bissa dvd how soon can I get one


'Shaw cross juniors, Birkenshaw, Mirfield, Heckmondwike Panthers, Stainland Stags and then the Heavy woolen donkeys... WARDY, STOZZA, GT, KARL OR KEAR MUST OF DROPPED A DIGIT FROM MY MOBILE NUMBER! :clapping:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that your lot looked quite impressive for the first 30 minutes, moving the ball well with decent organisation and an obvious difference in the style of play compared with last year; clearly the coach has made a real impact. After that a few players were starting to blow a bit (a lot of spare timber on show from both sides) and you lost your shape on attack, ending up with one-man efforts. On the showing your squad doesn't look as strong as it was last year but the coaching might prove to be better.

Our team, on the other hand, looked very disorganised in the first half then looked much better in the second when Finn took more of a grip on the structure. From 12-0 down we eventually went in front, deservedly so in my view, but the ultimate draw was a pretty fair reflection upon the efforts of both sides.

For a Boxing Day match it was a bit better quality than most recent games with both coaches taking the game seriously and respecting the fans by not messing around with formations too much. A fair few cobwebs will have been blown away and the coaches, as well as most fans, will have "taken a few positives" from the match. Neither side look likely to be breaking any pots next season but nor should either really be threatened by relegation if this showing can be built upon as well as being reinforced with returning players.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my relatively unbiased view, I thought Dewsbury's pack was a dominant force, Batley's was quite weak with much lower yardage gained. I would be worried if I were a Batley fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite all the aforementioned comments about the quality of our squad, they definitely looked a happier bunch, and the team spirit and the working for each other ethic was definitely evident. Our 6 looked promising, with a reasonable kicking game that will improve with game time. Overall a fair result, with evidence of the returning Bulldog spirit on show

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ackroman said:

From my relatively unbiased view, I thought Dewsbury's pack was a dominant force, Batley's was quite weak with much lower yardage gained. I would be worried if I were a Batley fan.

It's funny how we all see games differently. I thought our pack was pretty dominant all afternoon, but we looked very weak on the flanks, Ryder looked a class above any other back on the park, and we looked a very slow side, devoid of any sort of pace. I think if they'd have had our pack, or we'd had their backs the scoreline would have been very one sided. 

Yates had probably his best game for us IMO, he was industrious all afternoon. I'd like to see White run a bit more, but his kicking game was a huge improvement over anyone we had last season. As previously mentioned, for a first run out for them as a pairing, I thought they went okay and was quite encouraged.

More worrying for me was the same failings as last season were again on show, namely the inability to respect the ball. We made so many handling errors, it was like last season had never ended. Hopefully this is just down to it being a first run out and can be resolved quickly, unlike last season where it plagued us from start to finish.

The mistakes allowed Dewsbury to spend most of the game in our half. Even in the first half, where popular consensus was we were the better side, we only really seemed to have 3 attacks on Dewsbury's line, scoring twice. Despite all of the possession we gave away and considering the amount of pressure we had to endure, Dewsbury rarely looked threatening, which was a credit to our goal line defense, I guess.

We definitely need some pace injecting in to the back line.

Edited by DOGFATHER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don'f know where Ackroman got the impression that Dewsbury's pack was dominant, Nelmes for a start was a waste of a shirt, and Stored and Finn should have taken a leaf out of Dom's book and realised when time was up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, phildog said:

Don'f know where Ackroman got the impression that Dewsbury's pack was dominant, Nelmes for a start was a waste of a shirt, and Stored and Finn should have taken a leaf out of Dom's book and realised when time was up.

Considering Batley spent nigh on an hour in their own half without scoring a point I was of the opinion one pack was more dominant than the other. Dewsbury executed more effective exit sets from their own line. They often made over half way whereas Batley didn't. For both sides is was a knock-on athon. Both sets of halves huffed and puffed, until the 35th minute up to mid second half where Dews halves created 3 tries for the backs. I also thought Batley weren't as fit or enthusistic. 

Maybe I'm not as unbiased as I thought but I would be interested on a hearing a professionals opinon of the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, phildog said:

Don'f know where Ackroman got the impression that Dewsbury's pack was dominant, Nelmes for a start was a waste of a shirt, and Stored and Finn should have taken a leaf out of Dom's book and realised when time was up.

Stored? Nope, you got me with that one.

Finn was actually 50% better than he was at the back end of last season and looks to have lost a fair bit of weight.

As always it is difficult to take too much from such games - February will give us all a better understanding of how our respective sides might perform.


Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lot between the two sides I thought our halfbacks were the better pairing and showed promise for the future and in fact White impressed with his first run out in a Batley shirt .Apart from conversions I thought Sykes was very poor .Forwards just about  cancelled each other out both far to many handling errors Leaky doing an 80 minute stint again good effort for the first game of the season .In all a better performance than I thought it may have been considering the personnel changes and a change of coach a promising start and I was so pleased to see Danny Bravo pull a shirt on so pleased for the lad !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ackroman said:

From my relatively unbiased view, I thought Dewsbury's pack was a dominant force, Batley's was quite weak with much lower yardage gained. I would be worried if I were a Batley fan.

Why be worried . It was only a friendly kick about in the park. I thought both teams played some good rugby at times.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

It's funny how we all see games differently. I thought our pack was pretty dominant all afternoon, but we looked very weak on the flanks, Ryder looked a class above any other back on the park, and we looked a very slow side, devoid of any sort of pace. I think if they'd have had our pack, or we'd had their backs the scoreline would have been very one sided. 

Yates had probably his best game for us IMO, he was industrious all afternoon. I'd like to see White run a bit more, but his kicking game was a huge improvement over anyone we had last season. As previously mentioned, for a first run out for them as a pairing, I thought they went okay and was quite encouraged.

More worrying for me was the same failings as last season were again on show, namely the inability to respect the ball. We made so many handling errors, it was like last season had never ended. Hopefully this is just down to it being a first run out and can be resolved quickly, unlike last season where it plagued us from start to finish.

The mistakes allowed Dewsbury to spend most of the game in our half. Even in the first half, where popular consensus was we were the better side, we only really seemed to have 3 attacks on Dewsbury's line, scoring twice. Despite all of the possession we gave away and considering the amount of pressure we had to endure, Dewsbury rarely looked threatening, which was a credit to our goal line defense, I guess.

We definitely need some pace injecting in to the back line.

Summed up very well. Can’t write too much into the game apart from we didn’t lose for a change. Good run out for both sets of players.

 

3 hours ago, phildog said:

Don'f know where Ackroman got the impression that Dewsbury's pack was dominant, Nelmes for a start was a waste of a shirt, and Stored and Finn should have taken a leaf out of Dom's book and realised when time was up.

Nelmes a waste of a shirt,thought one or two Batley players made him look like twiggy?I take it you mean Sykes? Paul looked like he’d over indulged Christmas Day to me and you mention Dom,give me Sykes any day of the week. Btw that Sykes tackle on JC on the try line was worth the admission price alone,or didn’t you see that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoyed the game and for mine a draw was a fair result. First thirty we were dominant and looked far better than our opponents who looked very predictable in attack. At half time the changes we made affected us our pack lost its dominance and Dewsbury had the better of the second half. For us the lack of depth in our squad will be a problem one or too injuries and we will struggle. we are very light in the threequarters with a lack of pace. A half back is a must. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Stored? Nope, you got me with that one.

Finn was actually 50% better than he was at the back end of last season and looks to have lost a fair bit of weight.

As always it is difficult to take too much from such games - February will give us all a better understanding of how our respective sides might perform.

I reckon "store" should read Sykes BSJ. 

Interesting predictive text that one.

  • Haha 1

WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO SWIPE THIS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...