Well, I think that's completely and utterly wrong. And the tries below demonstrate that. Duffie is clearly to blame for Hoffman's first try. He first contemplates coming in, then almost loses his balance after realising he doesn't need to, because Sau is coming across, and after Norman throws the cutout Duffie doesn't even make a decent effort on Hoffman. You have to give your inside men the chance to cover and Sau was clearly in a position to. The second try is about 50/50. Chambers comes flying in and creates the overlap but Duffie makes just as big a mistake by following him, taking no one and then falling over. Cronk got across to Jack Reed and forced him to pass even before the 10m line. So yes, Chambers created the problem but as I've said, you have to have faith in your inside men. Duffie didn't do that and in not doing so absolutely made certain that the try would be scored. Hoffman's third was entirely Duffie's fault. Cronk and Chambers were sliding and would clearly have got across to cover Norman and Reed but Duffie didn't give them a chance to. He raced in, (Chambers didn't this time), and gave Hoffman free passage to the line. The last try, I agree, Duffie couldn't do anything about.
Just watched replay, no way Slater is off side. Thought Melbourne's middle third defence looked really vulnerable throughout the game, which imo is a bigger worry than the fact that Chambers & Duffman were all over the shop tonight. I reckon their 4-0 start to the season makes them look a lot better than they've been.
Whilst there were apparent cracks and flaws in their line, I think it was mainly positional rather than technical. I have to say, they are just unbelievably good when it comes to getting the ball carrier to ground and in a pliable position. Watch, for example, Nth QLD's defence against Newcastle and compare it to Melbourne's tonight. The Cowboys just couldn't get Newcastle players to ground. The number of times they had three men in a standing tackle was ridiculous. Then you look at Melbourne; it's methodical. They have one or two men go high, and then a third man senses the direction the tackle is going and positions himself to tackle low and at an angle that will bring the man down. They are like a team of lumberjacks in defence and it's the most signal reason for their constant superiority. The talk about wrestling is overblown and misguided. Credit where credit is due; their real expertise is chopping the tree down, not what they do afterwards. What they do has such a telling effect. First it stops extra yardage and offloads. Second it allows them to control the ruck. Third because they control the ruck there's no need to overwork or overcompensate on the ground (which is something the Cowboys and som any other teams do) and thus give away unnecessary penalties. And forth it allows their line to properly set for the next ruck.
I just saw the replays then. Duffie wasn't out of position, he had Hoffman covered. He didn't even need to make the tackle! All he had to do was put a bump on Hoffman and the cover defence would have taken him out. So yeah, that was Duffie's fuck up. To his credit, 5 minutes later he scored one of his own. Hoffman's second try I can't put on Duffie. Chambers went all in, he decided to sprint up and stop the play, but went too late and fucked it up. If Duffie stayed back, Brisbane would have had a 3 on one. He came up with Chambers - and looked as though he had the play covered, except that Glenn I think managed to stick his mit out at Wallaces' bodgy pass and not knock it on. And Hoffman's third - yeah, that was on Duffie. But again, straight after that he combined with Chambers in the corner to score another pretty good try. That last try he was certainly left out to dry. He had an ordinary night, but it was hardly a nightmare for him. I think O'Neill & Waqa are still a couple of weeks away from returning, so I would imagine most of the back line are probably on notice at the moment. And whoever said Melbourne have been made to look better than they have been this season - I couldn't disagree more. Last season we had a ridiculously easy schedule to start the year, I think we won seven in a row? and we looked a hell of a lot flatter than we do now. I don't think they've been pushed at all yet, and Brisbane at Suncorp and a grand final rematch are always pretty good scalps.
Are Broncos ever gonna start trying to develop some young props? It's not like they've got a great rotation as it is...
I don't care how shit house Wallace and Prince are, Brisbane at Lang on Easter Friday are a good scalp.
Especially after being kept to 0 the week before and getting smashed in the media. Broncos had everything to play for, I almost tipped them.
The guy fell over the line from 7m out. If he'd stayed out, Cronk would've tackled Reed. And Duffie would've been on Hoffman. You race in and take no one, you assure that a try will be scored. I give Duffie some latitude on this one because Chambers created the problem, but as I said, Duffie completed the problem. The guy let in two and a half tries. I don't really think Bellamy would take the same view of your tit for tat accounting.
Even if we'd won it still would've been a bad tip. It's straight up foolish to tip the current Broncos side without Hodges and McGuire. I said pre-match that it would be close but never really thought the Broncos would win, and the scoreboard flattered for most of the night.
Your logic is what's retarded. You're implying that making a good tip is entirely contingent upon whether you end up being right or not. As if you're axiomatically vindicated if your tip wins. That's plainly ridiculous. No person who knows the game even moderately well, as you do, could tip Brisbane last night after taking into account the available evidence. It would've been like some retard tipping Penrith last week and almost coming up trumps. If they'd won, the person who tipped Penrith would still be retarded. It's counter-intuitive in the highest degree. You happen to fluke a win doesn't mean your reasoning was sound.
