And so on to Newcastle

[Dog forever]

Never really looked at times that we could get out of second gear.  But all in all some good tries scored. It was never going to be easy up there. I thought ref gave some dubious decisions against us. A wins a sin and I would have taken that score before kick off.

[distantdog]

12 minutes ago, Dog forever said:

Never really looked at times that we could get out of second gear.  But all in all some good tries scored. It was never going to be easy up there. I thought ref gave some dubious decisions against us. A wins a sin and I would have taken that score before kick off.

Thing is, for seasons, 2017, 18 and 19, especially the latter two, that would have represented overdrive! It is easy to forget how bad some off those performances were. For me, I am going to enjoy a bit of success, plenty of points and a team that seems to be really enjoying the game.

Not sure we would have come away from there, on that pitch with the points in previous seasons.

[phildog]

I don't think we should be turning everybody over yet after saying I fancied us by a dozen or so ( correct on that score!!), I didn't think Thunder were quite as good as I thought they were (they might have had an off-day like us) , but today I don't think we were as good as we've been either. I still think we weren't as calculated on attack as we've been and I think we were better in defeat at Fev than in winning today. Suppose that happens!

[Dog forever]

1 hour ago, distantdog said:

Thing is, for seasons, 2017, 18 and 19, especially the latter two, that would have represented overdrive! It is easy to forget how bad some off those performances were. For me, I am going to enjoy a bit of success, plenty of points and a team that seems to be really enjoying the game.

Not sure we would have come away from there, on that pitch with the points in previous seasons.

Must agree with you dd. Think I'm expecting us to put 50 past other teams every game.  

[Dog forever]

8 minutes ago, phildog said:

I don't think we should be turning everybody over yet after saying I fancied us by a dozen or so ( correct on that score!!), I didn't think Thunder were quite as good as I thought they were (they might have had an off-day like us) , but today I don't think we were as good as we've been either. I still think we weren't as calculated on attack as we've been and I think we were better in defeat at Fev than in winning today. Suppose that happens!

It looked a small pitch, but I might be wrong, but I think we play better on bigger pitchers. 

[DOGFATHER]

1 hour ago, Dog forever said:

Never really looked at times that we could get out of second gear.  But all in all some good tries scored. It was never going to be easy up there. I thought ref gave some dubious decisions against us. A wins a sin and I would have taken that score before kick off.

Sorry to disagree, but I thought the ref was excellent today. He missed some things, but not much at all!

He gave what he saw, and was very even handed. If the refs are to his standard every week, there will be no complaints from me.

 

[distantdog]

15 minutes ago, phildog said:

I don't think we should be turning everybody over yet after saying I fancied us by a dozen or so ( correct on that score!!), I didn't think Thunder were quite as good as I thought they were (they might have had an off-day like us) , but today I don't think we were as good as we've been either. I still think we weren't as calculated on attack as we've been and I think we were better in defeat at Fev than in winning today. Suppose that happens!

Would you describe today as an off-day?

[DOGFATHER]

31 minutes ago, phildog said:

I don't think we should be turning everybody over yet after saying I fancied us by a dozen or so ( correct on that score!!), I didn't think Thunder were quite as good as I thought they were (they might have had an off-day like us) , but today I don't think we were as good as we've been either. I still think we weren't as calculated on attack as we've been and I think we were better in defeat at Fev than in winning today. Suppose that happens!

They looked a very good side imo. A good solid pack with a few big ex SL players in it, defensively well organised, 2 very good halfbacks and they had a fair amount of strike out wide in Brown and Gill.

I reckon they wont be far off the playoffs come the end of season, if they play like that. 

In a lot of ways that was a better win than either of the first 2 imo. We were really tested for the full 80 minutes today. It would be hard to argue that we were in the previous 2 games.

[RogerT]

Well I for one enjoyed that, we seemed to enjoy 6 again a few times.

[RogerT]

I would like to have seen the non try by Hall again, hmm certainly touched the corner flag isn't that in play nowadays.

[colinb]

I enjoyed it also. Agree we were tested for 80mins. Didnt think we were as sharp as previous games, Newcastle dropped a lot of passes that we could have punished better. We stuck to it, kept at them and we responded well. It showed that we can adapt to different situations, credit to Linners and his staff. Team Spirit excellent, players coming in did well,  a good afternoon's work. 

Now Friday's game will be a bit different. Can't wait.

[colinb]

3 minutes ago, RogerT said:

I would like to have seen the non try by Hall again, hmm certainly touched the corner flag isn't that in play nowadays.

And did Logans foot touch the line before he pushed ball back? 

[RogerT]

H'mm very very close.

[Dog forever]

1 hour ago, colinb said:

And did Logans foot touch the line before he pushed ball back? 

I thought he kept the ball in play, it was very close. 

[Bull pups]

3 minutes ago, Dog forever said:

I thought he kept the ball in play, it was very close. 

I said this at the time... Didn't look out to me..

[phildog]

In the Logan incident the ball never touched ground over the dead ball line which leaves it live and TV shots seemed to show that Jack played the ball backwards before he went out of play so there was the chance  of a try. However as previously said the ref was pretty well on the mark and we didn't complain or ask him to talk to the touchjudge. We gave them 6 points for free with the daft wide pass when we weren't going to go 60 yards in the woods remaining tackles, 28-10 would have been a better reflection as I think we bossed 65 minutes of the game. They scored 3 tries from maybe 4 opportunities and never got extensive possession on our line whereas we were always on the go forward.

[Keep The Faith]

8 hours ago, distantdog said:

thought the lad with the Geordie accent was OK, but John helm (I think) didn't really seem to know what was going on. 

I thought the score didn't really reflect our dominance.

I know that Gilmore and Leak will take the plaudits, but thought our pack in the first 20 were really impressive, especially Blagbrough and Gledhill, and Lillycrop was impressive when he came on.

I thought John Helme was Ok 

 

 

[Keep The Faith]

Right looking back when we go set for set we will be in any game for a long period of time and will score points...  when we give penalties and drop the ball we invite pressure Thunder didn’t look like scoring in the 1st half our pack laid the platform for the backs to play but again we switched off for them to score two tries which one came off a 50/50 call which went their way 

hopefully we learn this week and go again for Friday it’s exciting watching us atm must be something about full backs and coaches of Batley doing well... 

we have played Gateshead/Newcastle away 5 times with 4 wins and a draw 

[frank]

Another good win. That's what builds confidence.

[DOGFATHER]

13 hours ago, colinb said:

I enjoyed it also. Agree we were tested for 80mins. Didnt think we were as sharp as previous games, Newcastle dropped a lot of passes that we could have punished better. We stuck to it, kept at them and we responded well. It showed that we can adapt to different situations, credit to Linners and his staff. Team Spirit excellent, players coming in did well,  a good afternoon's work. 

Now Friday's game will be a bit different. Can't wait.

You could well  be correct, but I'm not sure how much was us not being as sharp as previous weeks, or Newcastle's defensive organisation being much better than our 2 previous opponents.

Buchanan missed a sitter, but out jumped them to create the final try, Logan's flick back was very marginal as was Hall's at the corner. On another day we could have had 3 more tries, it just goes to show, even the very best sides blow the odd chances.

 

 

[Blind side johnny]

20 hours ago, Dog forever said:

It looked a small pitch, but I might be wrong, but I think we play better on bigger pitchers. 

How does the size compare with MP?

[redditchbulldog]

On 02/05/2021 at 19:15, phildog said:

I don't think we should be turning everybody over yet after saying I fancied us by a dozen or so ( correct on that score!!), I didn't think Thunder were quite as good as I thought they were (they might have had an off-day like us) , but today I don't think we were as good as we've been either. I still think we weren't as calculated on attack as we've been and I think we were better in defeat at Fev than in winning today. Suppose that happens!

I thought we did marvellous with only been off the bus 30 mins so all pre- match would have been disrupted and all said and done thats wasn't a bad newcastle side except the unforced errors which were coming off the back of our dominant defence and last 10 mins in the past would have been oh so different with us snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

[phildog]

I thought the pitch looked much wider than ours. I know we've been forced to bring our lines in to distance players from the touch-side barriers, maybe their ground, being much more modern than The Mount, has a wider footprint to start with.

[RogerT]

They got changed on the coach, so John Helme said, so that saved them time.

[Batley Bob]