GRAND FINAL - Melbourne Storm VS Canterbury Bulldogs

Discussion in 'Matches' started by KimmorleyKiller, Sep 21, 2012.

  1. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    :blink: Do you close you eyes and just listen to the commentary or something? Chambers was out of position all night.
     
  2. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    Gotta say that apart from his dud goal kicking and the choices to shoot for penalty goals, Cameron Smith was amazing. 40 tackles, and 130m from 14 runs. He carved up the Dogs' middle. His try saver on Ennis too was a real captain's play.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  3. Cribbage RG Cribb

    I think he had a punt on it.
     
  4. Hunter AD Hunt

    Just looking at the stats, Inu tackled at 60% and Reynolds at 59%. Why the fuck would you have these two spastics next to each other?
     
  5. Pretzel P Retzel

    I have to agree with this. Every time someone managed to make a break the Storm would have 3 or 4 players circling in cover. They played amazing yesterday and definitely deserved to win but I can't well but wonder what if we managed to convert some of our plays better (the Barba grubber to Morris, Ennis from dummy half, Kasiano to Barba offload etc). We played hard but just lacked direction, which I suppose is suspected with our halves and the fact that no one had really put it to us before like the Storm did.
     
  6. Hunter AD Hunt

    Nobbie was definitely robbed of the CC medal.
     
  7. Howsie DP Howell

    We had plenty of opportunities in the second half IMO, neither Keating nor Reynolds took charge.
     
  8. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    I agree they didn't. Doesn't mean that if they did you would've won. Melbourne had plenty of opportunities in the second half too and they couldn't manufacture any points.

    Perhaps you might spend a bit of time criticising your pack, which is where you actually lost the game.
     
  9. Magic AJ Parker

    They had ample opportunities to score points in the second half. They had 7 more sets than than the Storm in the 2nd half (Storm had 8 more in the first half).

    It was pretty obvious early that the Storm's outside backs were just going to rush up and in on Dogs but their halves (the players responsible for dictating their attack) failed to adapt. There were one or two times where Reynolds played a little more direct and he made 2 half breaks on the back of his own running game but that was about where it ended.
     
  10. Howsie DP Howell

    Nope, but it could've made a massive difference.
     
  11. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    Yes but they weren't camped on Melbourne's line like the Storm were in the first half. Melbourne clearly had much better field position.

    I think some people are putting too much emphasis on this ball shifting. It's a feature of their game but it's not like they play side-to-side. A huge reason why the shifting didn't work was because, as I've said several times, they didn't go forward. When you don't go forward, you don't have space out wide. It's not up to Keating and Reynolds to make the forwards go forward.

    I'm sorry I just don't buy this notion that if the halves took control and started throwing cut-out passes etc. Canterbury would've won. How can that be the main criticism when their pack got rolled?
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  12. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    So could their forwards actually turning up. Canterbury's forwards ran for 551m. Melbourne's ran for 833m. No shifting game plan can explain a disparity of that magnitude.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  13. Magic AJ Parker

    I never said they were playing too much side to side, I just though they could of played more direct on occasions but lacked direction. Neither did I say that they should start throwing cut out pases.

    Bulldogs had great field position at times throughout the second half and came up with 0 tries. How hard could it be for the halves to figure out that an up and in defence means space in behind the 3/4's yet I can't think of one time when they grubbered in behind the line. They rarely played direct either all night.

    Inside 20's were equal by the end of the night & possesion was 53% to 47%. You can't keep justifying their inept attack by saying they didn't have opportunities.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  14. Toolman TR Man

    Their lack of halves were evident and have been all year when close to the line. All Keating does is kick on the last, and his kicking was shit like usual, the only thing that ever comes off it is a good Inu take. So besides that, their only last play option is to spread it. They have nothing because they don't have a halfback. I can't believe Keating is seriously that shit, how the fuck did he get to first grade?
     
  15. Pretzel P Retzel

    Hmm, well hopefully Hasler gives Hodkinson a run next year. He surely has to be better than Keating.
     
  16. Cribbage RG Cribb

  17. Alex AJ O'Driscoll

    :laughing: Well spotted, if it was you.
     
  18. Cribbage RG Cribb

    Haha nah, stolen off Facebook.
     
  19. Old Mate M Perry

    Haha yeah I uploaded that.
     
  20. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    So do I. However, I don't see that as the sole fault of the halves and thus don't believe they should be singled out. The forwards didn't go forward. Criticise them inside the Storm's 20 all you like but not mid-field when they're on the back foot for most of the night.

    Melbourne had 10 sets, half of which were inside Canterbury's 40, in the first 15 minutes and could only produce one try. At no point did Canterbury have dominance like that.

    I agree they should've looked to be more enterprising especially when the game was nearer the end.

    I'm not justifying their inept attack. I already criticised them. I'm saying they aren't the sole or primary reason why the Dogs lost. Where is your criticism of the Dogs pack that gave up 300 extra metres? It wasn't Keating's and Reynolds's fault that Melbourne had 30 tackles inside the Dogs 20 in the first half. Or that the Dogs had to make twice as many tackles in the first 30 minutes. These are the causes of the loss.
     

Share This Page