Round 11 Cronulla Sharks V Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs 20th of May 4.10pm Southern Cross Group Stadium

[Thresher]

Gallen 150 metres or so, but seems a shadow of his former self

First game back from injury so hopefully the intensity gradually lifts over the next 3 weeks.

 

[Spanner shark]

Dugan should have a couple of runs in reserves with Feki. Cat

What l should have said what a TNUC. Good defensive centre no wonder St Merge were clapping theier hands when the Pickled Rick left them. VAL back to full back and if Ramien keeps in touch, reserves for the loser

 

[Wiz]

Our attack has actually flowed better with Val at the back and without Gal

Good comment... Val should deserve a chance again at the back, Dugan and Ramien centre, Katoa and Lee wing.

Gal should be involved a little less, always seems to touch the ball twice a set

 

[Milkshark]

Yep gal getting too involved again. Need him to take a back seat. I’d give Val another shot back there.

Chads need to work hard on his last tackle options. They let us down.

 

[Wiz]

Yep gal getting too involved again. Need him to take a back seat. I’d give Val another shot back there.

Chads need to work hard on his last tackle options. They let us down.

Yep agree, we never really gained momentum .. somehow he will get praised like usual though - Both him and Moylan just need to work on getting better together, we could've finished them off but never really did

 

[dylan the villian]

5 in a row is great, but the last 4 have been against struggling teams. I'm not getting too carried away. Newy next week, and they're another time drifting backwards.

we are struggling ourselves for top 17 players remember.

 

[slide rule]

Yep gal getting too involved again. Need him to take a back seat. I’d give Val another shot back there.

Chads need to work hard on his last tackle options. They let us down.

Yep agree, we never really gained momentum .. somehow he will get praised like usual though - Both him and Moylan just need to work on getting better together, we could've finished them off but never really did

Are you two the same person?

 

[jbank]

Ramien was outstanding in attack, however his defence was ordinary at best.

Ramien arguably let in 3 tries despite making up for it with that outstanding solo try.

Would be moving duges there next week and giving val another crack at fb.

 

[Gards]

Dogs made a real fist of it, had us on the backfoot in first half, (our errors were a big factor in that as well) contained our metres and forwards like few sides have and kept coming back at us in the second

That was a bizzare game from the officials, we seemed to have their blessing much of the game and IMO they helped get us over the line, we did well to get the win against a hungry dogs side but it wasn't all on our own backs but the refs just seemed dodgy/random all round

We are winning penalty count 5-0 early in first half so in theory our discipline is good and dogs isn't

Dogs then get something like 5 or 6 penalties straight to even up the count leading into half time. So I know we were defending heavily by then and dogs on attack but our discipline didn't just suddenly completely go away (some of them were very soft nonsensical calls).

Second half dogs don't win a penalty for like 30 mins, we get some very dodgy calls go our way like seggy holding down woods legs and then we get a penalty for him not playing the ball correctly (which he didn't), Edrick winning a penalty for being crowded after he screwed up the play the ball himself and there were some more.

On the flip side dogs were allowed to throw countless forward passes all game

As I said a bizzare game from officiating point of view, they did a poor job but overall we seemed to get the rub at crucial points of the game which gave us the edge ultimately

We have been in the dogs position in seasons gone by when we wern't winning games and it seems like you just don't get much luck or love from the refs

 

[BlackWhiteBlue]

Ramien was outstanding in attack, however his defence was ordinary at best.

Ramien arguably let in 3 tries despite making up for it with that outstanding solo try.

Would be moving duges there next week and giving val another crack at fb.

I dont see how 1 good run for a try makes up for 2-3 defensive errors leading to tries

 

[TheMexican]

I dont see how 1 good run for a try makes up for 2-3 defensive errors leading to tries

No, that maths doesn't work for me

 

[TheMexican]

Dogs made a real fist of it, had us on the backfoot in first half, (our errors were a big factor in that as well) contained our metres and forwards like few sides have and kept coming back at us in the second

That was a bizzare game from the officials, we seemed to have their blessing much of the game and IMO they helped get us over the line, we did well to get the win against a hungry dogs side but it wasn't all on our own backs but the refs just seemed dodgy/random all round

We are winning penalty count 5-0 early in first half so in theory our discipline is good and dogs isn't

Dogs then get something like 5 or 6 penalties straight to even up the count leading into half time. So I know we were defending heavily by then and dogs on attack but our discipline didn't just suddenly completely go away (some of them were very soft nonsensical calls).

Second half dogs don't win a penalty for like 30 mins, we get some very dodgy calls go our way like seggy holding down woods legs and then we get a penalty for him not playing the ball correctly (which he didn't), Edrick winning a penalty for being crowded after he screwed up the play the ball himself and there were some more.

On the flip side dogs were allowed to throw countless forward passes all game

As I said a bizzare game from officiating point of view, they did a poor job but overall we seemed to get the rub at crucial points of the game which gave us the edge ultimately

We have been in the dogs position in seasons gone by when we wern't winning games and it seems like you just don't get much luck or love from the refs

And then there was the "no try" to Val after Paulo's knock-on. Arguably the dogs got the rub of the green on that one.

 

[jbank]

I dont see how 1 good run for a try makes up for 2-3 defensive errors leading to tries

Sorry, what was mean't was that he made up for the first try he let in.

The other 2 were not made up for.

 

[jbank]

No, that maths doesn't work for me

Sorry, what was mean't was that he made up for the first try he let in.

The other 2 were not made up for.

 

[Sir Chadley]

And then there was the "no try" to Val after Paulo's knock-on. Arguably the dogs got the rub of the green on that one.

How so? Paulo dropped the ball before his attempted kick.

 

[Gards]

His try was so good it made up for 2 errors!

But his defense has always been bad in first grade, guess it's something Newcastle will need to sort out in their setup, don't know how much we will improve it this year. Mind you we have many culprits out on that right side who love to rush in or fall off tackles... so he stands out while not being alone...

 

[BlackWhiteBlue]

And then there was the "no try" to Val after Paulo's knock-on. Arguably the dogs got the rub of the green on that one.

Yeah they got the rub of the green alright. From paulo, not the refs

 

[Wiz]

Sorry, what was mean't was that he made up for the first try he let in.

The other 2 were not made up for.

Are we talking about Ramien ? He only let 2 in not 3 .. Val let the other one in by rushing up unneccesarily

 

[Gards]

How so? Paulo dropped the ball before his attempted kick.

Common sense tells me the refs got the Paulo one correct as he dropped the ball BUT is it consistent with the Slater ruling? That's up for debate

Would have been very interesting if Paulo kicked it with the toe or top of his boot instead of the heel

 

[Wiz]

I dont see how 1 good run for a try makes up for 2*-3 defensive errors leading to tries

Fixed