Sparkles
Jaws
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 12,203
- Reaction score
- 2,956
CT’s 1 point attempt meant nothing in the overall context of the game at that point.
Had CT played the percentages and rolled the ball in for a repeat set, or ran it into the corner so the dragons had to restart from 5-10 out tackle 1 or bombed for a 6 tackle set instead of a 7 tackle restart at the 20, we would be talking about a Warriors win and a gutsy performance given his should injury early in the game. However he chose a low percentage “result” play (ie 1 point to go to a 9 point lead which is redundant) and then blew the relatively easy shot from 20-25m out just off centre.
That play changed the rest of the match (“sliding doors”) by giving away a 7 tackle restart from the 20 and giving the dragons all momentum.
The Dragons then capitalised and scored which changed the last 6 mins of the game in reg time. All from 1 momentum shifting play.
NQ’s problem now.
I have nothing against CT but think he just showed last night that his decision making it not up to scratch.
Or lack of game awareness if he thought they were only up by 6.
How in your head do you lock in that field goal attempt as the butterfly wing flap that lost them the game and not the thousands other things that contributed - say the 79th minute ruck infringement that lead immediately to Ramsay's try, for example? I suspect if the infringement was by Chad you'd call that out instead.