DOGS v DONKES [SPOILER]

[Kiwi]

geez i don't know brisbane fans, i'd be very worried if I were you. The dogs carved you up on the fringes of the ruck, exposing how immobile your big pack is. You've got great scrambling defence and it kept you in the game, but the short passing game of the forwards exposed some big chinks in Brisbane's game.

Why should we be worried? We dropped too much ball, forcing ourself to make almost 100 more tackles in the match, handed great field position to the Dogs for most of their tries, didn't find touch off a penalty, gave away stupid penalties and bombed tries. Yet despite all that the Broncos made more line breaks than the Dogs, made f12 less miss tackles land only lost by 7 points, and we should be worried?

 

[jimmythehand]

apparently line breaks were 5 a piece, I must have been watching a different game I thought the dogs made plenty more. Obviously you must have been watching a different game to the statisticians too!

I posted in another thread that Seymour is an unproven performer in big games - and he had an absolute shocker. Another cause for concern is how well he will perform in the finals.

The dogs also gave away stupid penalties, bombed tries and handed great field position to the Broncs for most of their tries.

On top of that Lockyer had an absolute blinder and you still lost.

Forward packs win games and the Broncos might be tough but they are fat oafs that can't get around. Good luck in the semis

 

[salivor]

I posted in another thread that Seymour is an unproven performer in big games - and he had an absolute shocker. Another cause for concern is how well he will perform in the finals.

Thats funny because Seymours best game of his career to date was in a man of the match performance against the Cowboys in Townsville earlier this year. I could've sworn that was a "big" match but maybe I was watching the same fantasy broadcast you were last night.

 

[jimmythehand]

so he has a good game in one match? Big deal. He's been a very average player in a lot more games than he's been good. I'd much rather see him playing half back than casey mcguire with barnes at hooker. Not that Casey is anything fantastic either.

Luckily he's shown enough "potential" for Bennett to keep him there for good.

 

[salivor]

Do I have to quote you again jimmy? You said he was unproven in big matches. Well that is his biggest match he's been a part of in in his career to date. A local derby, two top of the table teams who at that time were being heavily favoured to face off in the Grand Final. He stepped up and won us the match and suddenly he's unproven after one quiet performance against the Bulldogs?

 

[jimmythehand]

You can't be "suddenly unproven". You're unproven until you're proven. If he has one big match in one big game that doesn't make him proven. So of course he is still unproven.

As I said he's put in more ordinary performances than good performances over his career and it's very doubtful in my mind if he'll step up in the semi-finals. He's more likely than not to put in a performance like he did against the Dogs, than the one he did against the Cowboys.

A "quiet performance". There was nothing "quiet" about it. It was terrible.

 

[Ghoulies]

A "quiet performance". There was nothing "quiet" about it. It was terrible.

What was so "terrible" about it? He gave Lockyer the ball when he needed it, and had a good kicking game(aside from that kick for touch).

Seymour has probably excelled in only 4 games this season, and it's no coincidence that those were the games where Lockyer was either unavailable through Origin, or was out of play through injury.

 

[jimmythehand]

when he tried running the ball in the attacking area he was woeful. Anyone that tried running off him couldn't their timing right, because he didn't look to pass at the right moments.

Quite a few times he died with the ball and was slowed down which stifled your attack.

 

[salivor]

You can't be "suddenly unproven". You're unproven until you're proven. If he has one big match in one big game that doesn't make him proven. So of course he is still unproven.

As I said he's put in more ordinary performances than good performances over his career and it's very doubtful in my mind if he'll step up in the semi-finals. He's more likely than not to put in a performance like he did against the Dogs, than the one he did against the Cowboys.

A "quiet performance". There was nothing "quiet" about it. It was terrible.

That match against the Cowboys shows he's more than capable of stepping up for the big occaisions, for a guy who has very little first grade under his belt because of injuries, you can't ask for much more. To add to that he was sensational in the games against the Raiders and Sharks without our origin stars, again being close to the best player on the paddock on both occaisions. Doesn't worry me at all taking him as our halfback into the finals.

He's been solid for us on a weekly basis. People expect him to put in Tim Smith like performances and be setting the world on fire, any player will tell you it takes a while to get your confidence back after a major injury let along be trying to secure your place in first grade at the same time. As I said, it was just a quiet performance, if he makes touch from that penalty this argument doesn't occur, simple as that.

 

[salivor]

when he tried running the ball in the attacking area he was woeful. Anyone that tried running off him couldn't their timing right, because he didn't look to pass at the right moments.

Quite a few times he died with the ball and was slowed down which stifled your attack.

The couple of times I saw him run the football he was forced to as the Bulldogs had charged up out wide shutting down any options he had. His kicking game was solid and he was quiet on attack, the only terrible action was not making touch.

 

[jimmythehand]

shutting down his options?

According to the channel 9 commentators he should have been licking his lips at the options that rushing up gave him.

He just didn't know what to do and it killed your attack.

 

[salivor]

shutting down his options?

According to the channel 9 commentators he should have been licking his lips at the options that rushing up gave him.

He just didn't know what to do and it killed your attack.

Sorry am I debating the channel 9 commentators views or yours? As I said the few times I saw him run to the line he had to do so as the defense had cut off his options, simple as that. He had a quiet game, I'm still waiting for all these terrible things that he apparently did, where can I catch this fantasy broadcast of yours?

 

[jimmythehand]

By the way how good was Grimaldi's strip. Terry Lamb eat your heart out!

 

[bulldog]

It almost looked like Hunt handed him the ball, very funny. A well deserved MOM award for Grimaldi, one of the few times I've agreed with whoever it is that decides who gets it.

 

[jimmythehand]

Sorry am I debating the channel 9 commentators views or yours? As I said the few times I saw him run to the line he had to do so as the defense had cut off his options, simple as that. He had a quiet game, I'm still waiting for all these terrible things that he apparently did, where can I catch this fantasy broadcast of yours?

You only need to compare what the likes of Lockyer and Hunt did in the Bulldogs attacking area to what Seymour did. They created chances, Seymour stifled chances.

If a defence cuts off one option, then there's an option somewhere else. "Simple as that".

I was cheering every time I saw "slow-motion seymour" with the ball in the 22.

 

[jimmythehand]

It almost looked like Hunt handed him the ball, very funny. A well deserved MOM award for Grimaldi, one of the few times I've agreed with whoever it is that decides who gets it.

Yeah Bulldogs best but you could have almost given it to petrol 70c a litre or Lockyer on the losing side though. I thought they were both brilliant.

What's happened to Petero - all of a sudden he's worked out if you run for a gap you make a few more metres. Hope he finds his 2004 form again.

 

[salivor]

You only need to compare what the likes of Lockyer and Hunt did in the Bulldogs attacking area to what Seymour did. They created chances, Seymour stifled chances.

If a defence cuts off one option, then there's an option somewhere else. "Simple as that".

I was cheering every time I saw "slow-motion seymour" with the ball in the 22.

Yes lets compare him to Lockyer and Hunt who both had blinders. Your not doing much to back up your case that he had a terrible peformance. All your doing is proving mine that he had a quiet one. And yes he did take the other option, running it at the line and setting up for the next play.

 

[bulldog]

Yeah Bulldogs best but you could have almost given it to petrol 70c a litre or Lockyer on the losing side though. I thought they were both brilliant.

They both went very well, a long time since a player on the losing side got it though. Personally I would have given it to Webcke had the Broncos won.

 

[jimmythehand]

They both went very well, a long time since a player on the losing side got it though. Personally I would have given it to Webcke had the Broncos won.

How about Gower last week

 

[jimmythehand]

Yes lets compare him to Lockyer and Hunt who both had blinders. Your not doing much to back up your case that he had a terrible peformance. All your doing is proving mine that he had a quiet one. And yes he did take the other option, running it at the line and setting up for the next play.

okay we'll leave it at that. Bring on the grand final.