game against Canberra

[macnaz]

Yep, 4 straight penalties to the Roosters to start the game, only 2 penalties to us from general play in 100 minutes and just 1 penalty in the last 60 minutes (or whatever it was)....you keep telling yourself that it would have been the same scenario had we played at one of our true home grounds.

Spot on!
also worth mentioning that the roosters have only won a penalty count something like 3 out of 26 rnds.

 

[Tigger Madness]

Spot on!
also worth mentioning that the roosters have only won a penalty count something like 3 out of 26 rnds.

Which means that the Roosters playing at the SFS doesnt neccessarily give them an advantage with the refs.

Its also worth mentioning that the Roosters have THE WORST home ground records of all the team this season.

We didnt lose the game because it was played at the SFS. We lost it because we made some very poor decisions at crucial times in the game. As Tigers fan who went to the game, Im very happy that it was played where its was.

 

[alien]

If we beat the slime green tommorow night the concrete jungle (anz stadium) will be close to being soldout the following week against st.choke

 

[Tiger Hawk]

Which means that the Roosters playing at the SFS doesnt neccessarily give them an advantage with the refs.

Its also worth mentioning that the Roosters have THE WORST home ground records of all the team this season.

We didnt lose the game because it was played at the SFS. We lost it because we made some very poor decisions at crucial times in the game. As Tigers fan who went to the game, Im very happy that it was played where its was.

Well that's fantastic, glad you had a great time watching us lose a home game at another team's home ground.

 

[dice]

Yep, 4 straight penalties to the Roosters to start the game, only 2 penalties to us from general play in 100 minutes and just 1 penalty in the last 60 minutes (or whatever it was)....you keep telling yourself that it would have been the same scenario had we played at one of our true home grounds.

I suppose you missed Ellis blatantly punching the ball out of FPNs hands after tackle completed followed by the Tigers grounding the ball on the dead ball line. This led to about 4 sets of six to the tigers inside the Roosters 20m when it should have been a penalty to the roosters.

Try watching the game with both eyes.

 

[Tiger Hawk]

I suppose the 1 penalty in 60 minutes was a bit unclear for you rosie - I'll rephrase: 1 penalty in total to both teams in 60 minutes. That better princess?

 

[alien]

I suppose you missed Ellis blatantly punching the ball out of FPNs hands after tackle completed followed by the Tigers grounding the ball on the dead ball line. This led to about 4 sets of six to the tigers inside the Roosters 20m when it should have been a penalty to the roosters.

Try watching the game with both eyes.

are you the schmuck that doesnt rate the 2005 premiership??? :lol:

 

[alien]

yep its dice. he doesnt rate the 2005 premiership because we only won because the refs let us have quick play the balls. lol

 

[Tigger Madness]

Well that's fantastic, glad you had a great time watching us lose a home game at another team's home ground.

Two teams sharing a home ground is not unheard of. Get over it.

 

[Tiger Hawk]

That you even consider the SFS a home ground says it all.

 

[dice]

yep its dice. he doesnt rate the 2005 premiership because we only won because the refs let us have quick play the balls. lol

Once again open both eyes. What was considered a surrender tackle prior to 2005 was no longer considered a surrender tackle in 2005, and the interpretation changed again in 2006. The Tigers were the best team in 2005, I am not disputing that. I just don't believe that team would have won the premiership in any other year.

It is no coincidence the Tigers did FA prior to 2005 and have struggled since then, and no coincidence they are going well again with the quicker play the balls this year with two refs.

As such I do not rate the 2005 premiership as highly as other years. Just my opinion... you don't have to agree with it.

 

[Das Hassler]

"As such I do not rate the 2005 premiership as highly as other years. Just my opinion... you don't have to agree with it."

You make a reasonable point in a reasonable manner....BUT....how about the fact that they destroyed Brisbane .. St George and Nth Qld twice...with each of them having the experience of being 2004 semi finalists and each of them having more than their fair share of SOO and Australian rep players while we had none (apart from a couple of young Kiwi reps)....when was the last time a side obliterated their opponents in each of their 4 finals games without one of those games being in serious doubt with 20 minutes to go?....a reasonable man would rate that pretty highly wouldn't he?

 

[dice]

The interpretation of the rule and quicker play the ball nullified the defensive patterns of the likes of the Roosters and Bulldogs, and to an extent nullified large dominant forward packs. There was MUCH more focus on speed in attack.

Your comments about the Broncos, Saints, and Cowboys shows how versatile those teams were. Cowboys especially were very impressive to go so close under two different circumstances.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

The rules were better how they were in 2005, and not just because I'm a Tigers fan.

What would you rather see, quick play the balls, or strangling tactics like the Storm use i.e lying all over the play the ball and doing anything possible to slow it down? I know what is better to watch.

2005 was a much more attractive year for very good reason. It was only because the usual suspects with fat lazy forwards (i.e Dogs etc.) whinged about it that it was changed.

 

[The Rosco]

Once again open both eyes. What was considered a surrender tackle prior to 2005 was no longer considered a surrender tackle in 2005, and the interpretation changed again in 2006. The Tigers were the best team in 2005, I am not disputing that. I just don't believe that team would have won the premiership in any other year.

It is no coincidence the Tigers did FA prior to 2005 and have struggled since then, and no coincidence they are going well again with the quicker play the balls this year with two refs.

As such I do not rate the 2005 premiership as highly as other years. Just my opinion... you don't have to agree with it.

Hey there dice . .
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. No problems at all with that.
If I may throw a stat into the mix . . . to give some cold hard fact into the discussion . . WestsTigers average game score during the '05 semi's was 33-10. ( Actually 33.5-10, but let's not split hairs ;-) ).
I didn't think our play the balls were outrageously quick . . but I got the rose coloured glasses on.
If you like " watching knock 'em out, grind it out " sort of footy, then the '05 Finals series isn't for you.
If, however you happen to like the most amazing, brilliantly attractive and creative attack . . . then '05 is for you.
It has been said here before . . . put together a 10 minute highlight package of Benji's best bits during that season, and I challenge you to find a better 10 min segment from any player from the last 30 yrs.
Fulton, Hasler, Goodwin, Fittler, Langer, Cain, Price, Cronin . . . you name them, and they still wouldn't get even close.
Why don't you rate it ?. Is it because we "came from nowhere " ?. Do we need to serve some sort rite of passage involving being 10 years as semi-finalists ?
Sure, we came from nowhere. It was our first time in the semi's. We had to start somewhere.
We won that year playing a brand of footy that hasn't been seen since. Sadly, not even from us.

But if you don't rate it, that's fine .

 

[westie]

I love the ruck how it is now. 2005 was too fast. If you got on top, it was too easy to roll. 2008 was awful to watch.

 

[jasonl]

Hey there dice . .
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. No problems at all with that.
If I may throw a stat into the mix . . . to give some cold hard fact into the discussion . . WestsTigers average game score during the '05 semi's was 33-10. ( Actually 33.5-10, but let's not split hairs ;-) ).
I didn't think our play the balls were outrageously quick . . but I got the rose coloured glasses on.
If you like " watching knock 'em out, grind it out " sort of footy, then the '05 Finals series isn't for you.
If, however you happen to like the most amazing, brilliantly attractive and creative attack . . . then '05 is for you.
It has been said here before . . . put together a 10 minute highlight package of Benji's best bits during that season, and I challenge you to find a better 10 min segment from any player from the last 30 yrs.
Fulton, Hasler, Goodwin, Fittler, Langer, Cain, Price, Cronin . . . you name them, and they still wouldn't get even close.
Why don't you rate it ?. Is it because we "came from nowhere " ?. Do we need to serve some sort rite of passage involving being 10 years as semi-finalists ?
Sure, we came from nowhere. It was our first time in the semi's. We had to start somewhere.
We won that year playing a brand of footy that hasn't been seen since. Sadly, not even from us.

But if you don't rate it, that's fine .

Seriously, how could any sentient adult not rate it?

The 2005 WT run into and performance during the finals was probably the most exhillarating football played in living memory. Only perhaps the 1994 Canberra outfit could match it in terms of class and value for money for the average punter.

Sheens (though he has faded badly in recent seasons and with all due respect seems to be these days suffering from a mild form of dementia) put together a team and a style that had the potential to change the game forever. After 5 years of watching the likes of Easts under Stuart and Canterbury under Folkes grind out their size at all costs, safety first, gang tackling boring headbanger garbage, the general public got to see first hand just how breathtaking rugby league could be.

Could have been the dawn of a new era.

History will recall that it wasn't.

So be it.

 

[dice]

I didn't say 2005 wasn't entertaining, just that the rule changes were overboard.

Geez...you are drawing a very long bow comparing the class of 2005 Tigers to the class of the team below. There is a reason very few 2005 Tigers went on to play rep football which kind of emphasises my point.

1. Brett Mullins
2. Ken Nagas
3. Mal Meninga (c)
4. Ruben Wiki
5. Noa Nadruku

6. Laurie Daley
7. Ricky Stuart

8. Bradley Clyde
9. Jason Croker
10.David Furner
11.Paul Osbourne
12.Steve Walters
13.Quentin Pongia

 

[jasonl]

I didn't say 2005 wasn't entertaining, just that the rule changes were overboard.

Geez...you are drawing a very long bow comparing the class of 2005 Tigers to the class of the team below. There is a reason very few 2005 Tigers went on to play rep football which kind of emphasises my point.

1. Brett Mullins
2. Ken Nagas
3. Mal Meninga (c)
4. Ruben Wiki
5. Noa Nadruku

6. Laurie Daley
7. Ricky Stuart

8. Bradley Clyde
9. Jason Croker
10.David Furner
11.Paul Osbourne
12.Steve Walters
13.Quentin Pongia

Awesome line up isn't it?

For the record, in the key positions I place Hodgson ahead of Mullins, Farrah ahead of Walters, Richards ahead of either Nadruku or Nagas and Prince well and truly ahead of Stuart.

Daley and Clyde there is no real answer to. Particularly Clyde - the absolute Rolls Royce of forwards.

Sure, that Canberra team would probably edge out the 2005 WT but it would have been some game.

As to rep honours, that's a complex beast. There can be no doubt that the best player in 2005 was Scott Prince, followed closely by Brett Hodgson. Rep jerseys generally go to dominant incumbents so a wildcat team like Wests in that year were never going to get their due.

 

[dice]

Awesome line up isn't it?

For the record, in the key positions I place Hodgson ahead of Mullins, Farrah ahead of Walters, Richards ahead of either Nadruku or Nagas and Prince well and truly ahead of Stuart.

Daley and Clyde there is no real answer to. Particularly Clyde - the absolute Rolls Royce of forwards.

Sure, that Canberra team would probably edge out the 2005 WT but it would have been some game.

As to rep honours, that's a complex beast. There can be no doubt that the best player in 2005 was Scott Prince, followed closely by Brett Hodgson. Rep jerseys generally go to dominant incumbents so a wildcat team like Wests in that year were never going to get their due.

No offence dude. To this day I have never seen anyone throw a pass as long and accurate as Ricky Stuart, or kick as long as accurate as him. The guy was a freak and well ahead of anyone including Joey in that regard. Joey was a more complete halfback with more tricks and a better running game. I won't get into the Prince vs Thurston debate as they are both good halfbacks. Prince probably deserved a go at rep and you may be right about the incumbent.

There is no way Hodgson was better or deserved to replace Minichiello especially in the year Minichiello got his Golden Boot award.

Tigers didn't get many rep honours because quite frankly with the exception of maybe Prince they didn't deserve it. They were a team of handy players with excellent attacking halves that excelled under the interpretation of the rules at the time. The interpretation of those rules that did not apply to rep football, or any other calendar year.