Quote: Hangerman2 "I have to say that having given the team and Watson a lot of stick this year, i was impressed by that performance. I didn't think this team had that attacking play in them, and although the acid test will be against saints and then Warrington in the cup, i can say the following
I'd meant to respond to this post prior to yesterday's match but was unable to do so. It's also unfortunate Watson didn't act upon it and take sufficient notice of the plea in your third point.
As you say, and I'm jumping between comments here, what a shame Marsters was injured, and what a shame that Bibby instead of Halsall was his replacement. We too commented that had Halsall been on in the first half, he would have made much more of the opportunities presented to Bibby - granted it wouldn't have been too difficult, seen as he dropped the ball 3 or 4 times. And it seems a questionable decision to have him on the bench, particularly if we weren't really going to use him until ten minutes from time. There must be a good reason why another forward wasn't on the bench given that Leroy can cover across the three quarters in case of injury.
LoveRL had an article on the top 5 packs in Super League. Subjective though it may be, Saints came out on top and we didn't make the top 5. Since before Watson, our pack's role seems to have been to contain the opposition rather than get on top of them. I recall when we first got back into Super League and had Gannon, Fleary, Bloem, Turner and then Roarty in the pack. We may not have been the best but those weren't players content with just holding the opposition. Roll on a few seasons and we had Kopczak, Griffin, Mason and Eorl in the front row, with the likes of O'Donnell and Chan in the back. Again, players who relished getting the better of their opposing pack. Hill and Murchie are clearly losses for us at present (and the three other second rowers currently unavailable) but I think we need to bolster our pack and have a bit more go forward in it if we are to make the next step up. The signing of Burgess is a real boon in that respect and I'd like to see another tough acquisition if possible. But as you mention, perhaps our biggest downfall is at hooker. A bit more oomph in the pack, more quality at 9 and, as you say, we should be in contention.
... because our backs look quality. The backline against Leeds, as you said, is probably our best. Again subjective, but SeriousAboutRL have deemed our left edge the best centre/wing partnership in the league (that's Swift with Marsters as opposed to Bibby). Esan has done a Leutele in starting very steady but is a standout this season and hopefully won't be out too long as he is a huge miss. The three quarters get through so much grunt work - I'd like to see our forwards give them a bit more support! - but are also capable of producing some wonderful attacking play. The spine is moving the ball with greater speed and direction with Connor, Lolohea and Clune in it. Still, Tui, as mentioned before, is rocks and diamonds, the former of which was highlighted by his intercept last night. And if Connor hadn't been remonstrating with the official, as genuine a complaint as it may have been, and had played to the whistle I think we'd have stopped their second try (though Golding ought to have tackled him). Clune seems to be growing in influence. And Russell appears to be heading to Wakefield, which I am not sure constitutes a great loss.
Though ultimately thwarted, what a great performance in terms of effort and commitment last night, typified by Seb's determination to stop Blake from scoring in the corner. Last season I reckon we'd have lost at Leeds and folded last night, but so far we're looking like we're made of sterner stuff this season. Evidently we clearly aren't there yet, but we're looking much improved on last season.
