By that was close but still a win

People say weed need props but what we had looked good to me.
Our back row also looked OK
we are also strong at hooker
three quarter line is also quite handy
just need two half backs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't ever think we looked remotely like scoring in the second half. Contrast that to the way Matty Smith and Holdsworth opened us up time after time. Put them two in our side and then we would look a good side all round.

They can play well if we let them. They played crap cos we made em play crap.

Surely as they couldn't score for over half the game makes that a incorrect. I didn't think John was great today but Smith was.

Cant disgaree with much said in this thread.

Horrible game (esp 2nd half) we were lucky to win despite imploding in the 2nd half.
I didnt enjoy much of the game at all (barring the first 10 mins)

Still, its 2 points and a much needed win.

You did not see Matty Smith and Holdsworth in the first half, certainly did not open us up time after time as they only scored from our own kick. Agreed we were poor in the second half and I'd love to know why as I'm sure would Agar.

Thought Tim Smith went okay but do think John needs some some in the 20's.

Even though we had a poor second half we went 14 points clear with 8 minutes to go and allowed them to score 10 points in the last 5 minutes which is unaccepable. Had the final score been 26-12 I think most would have been happy with that.

The title of this thread is "Lucky" - much better than it being "Unlucky"

Its a win, still need to improve, but something to build on.

I'll never get posts like this. You have a colonel of an argument which you then destroy wit a ridiculous OTT comment. Actually in the first half Wakey would have beaten most team, as has been the case all year. Second half was a different story, however no one would have put 50 past us, no team has - stop talking utter crap.

Holdsworth and Smith never got in our half in the first 40 in all fairness to them they had nothing to work with.
However second half when they got a bit of field position they both looked very dangerous. Second half we also had good field position and our pack continued to put our halves on front foot but we looked pretty clueless and one thing is for sure, we havn't got a kicking game.

Gives us 2 good halves and we may be a decent team is basically what I am suggesting.

Smith is constantly organising the plays.
Yes I would like him to take on the defence more.
But take him out and I think we struggle more.
Sykes good signing.
Steady on attack, sound defensively and oh what joy to have a genuine goalkicker in the team.
Aiton, Kirmond superb and useful contributions from James and Mariano.
Cannot understand criticism of our attack.
First half our forwards were dominating , our halfbacks were outplaying Salfords and our backs looked dangerous.
It is all too easy to say Salford were poor.
Give our team credit for not allowing them to play.
Even Veivers said it would have been an injustice if they had won.
Yes, we let them back in, but teams can always be dangerous when they throw the ball around in unpredictable fashion trying to desperately to get back in the game.

First half Smith looked like the player we know he can be. We were dominating the game and on the back of that he was controlling things. Second half salford were on top and he didn't have the same oppotunity but he was the best we had out there, despite a couple of poor kicks. John was poor and Wood probably had his least effective game so far, probably as he was at halfback rather than hooker wherw IMHO he us more effective.

Thought we made our luck, in first half; Salford arent a bad team but our lads made them look terrible in first half. Suggest that degree of Oomph takes it out of you, plus they would have been lambasted by VEivers in dressing room (& he is scary!) at half time.
True, that to be play-off material, you do need to keep that intensity up for full 80, so a work in progress, but at 75 mins I didn't think we were in danger. Granted, at 78 mins I too needed an underpant transplant but - Heck - we're Trinity & that's our Karma ( see below ).
P.S: Does anyone else believe that unless we fans figure out how to remove the Malign Spell, cast on us by Leeds in '68, no Coach, Players or C.E.O. Will Return us to the place we truly belong.

The first half performance other than the try conceded from the attacking kick was great controlled rugby with us making a good number of opportunities and finishing the majority of them off.

Defence looked reasonably strong as well.

The second half there were some all too familar signs that we have seen too many times before :-

(1) Don't take the easy two points on offer on a couple of occasions which would have given us more breathing space earlier in the game (They were even thinking for far too long about whether to go for the 2 for the one that put us 26-12 up. Everyone in the crowd realised it would mean Salford had to score 3 times to get anything from the game, but the players took an age to realise it, despite having ran two earlier kickable penalties and coming up with nowt)

(2) Defensive line was static allowing easy yards, too many 3 man tackles where Salford were still able to offload and too many first men in going high on their big men, first man should imo always get the legs.

(3) Trying the same lofted kicks on a couple of occasions in the attack when we never look like competing for them and one had already cost us a try against.

(4) Poor effort (or should I say no effort) in trying to defuse the bomb which Moon knocked on from with the line at his mercy (whilst I do think he must have been offside to get there so quick, I doubt Bentham would have gone upstairs to check it)

(5) 3 clean breaks not finished off because of a lack of support play

I do think that part of the problem is down to the team selection and the use of the inetrchange bench. In both areas, there appears to be some strange decisions being made.

However, despite all those negatives the positive was the 2 points for the win, which the signing of Sykes effectively won us, as I doubt John would have converted a couple of the kicks Sykes landed in the first half.

Also, whilst Agar has made comment about Fox's tackle on Patten being crucial, I agree with Carney that Kirmond's effort to get back to Ashurst and cause him to fumble was also worthy of mention.

Kirmonds intervention at the end won us the game, but we should never have been in that position. A lack of composure could have cost us dear but its fair to say that the same problems cost us week in week out. We only have the game at saints (which is a tough ask at any time) now before the 20th may. They should be putting in long hours on the training ground to iron out these flaws for a second half of the season push. A month to sort the issues that have all been mentioned on here, using the saints game as a guide and a chance to try out a few things in readiness for warrington & london at home with the magic weekend game in the middle.

Completely agree.

Great comment, Poptart. Would we have taken that result before the game? YES! Anyone remember salford playing us off our park last season? I do and that win yesterday showed a lot of what is GOOD about the club. Promising attacking moves first half, character and bravery in defence in the last minute and a tremendous crowd for early Sat evening and a Sky game. The glass IS half full!

I didn't realise whilst at the game how close they came to scoring again on the 79th minute! Just watching it back on Sky.