In my last post, I mentioned people on here completely over exaggerating. This is the perfect example!
There is nothing over exaggerated in that post!
Rubbish pal. So you actually agree that our Sarries backs were 30% quicker ? A perfect example of over exaggeration if ever I’ve seen one.
You're welcome to your opinion.
It's rubbish to suggest it's rubbish, in my opinion.
Speed is up top as well as physical.
I don't know if 30% is the exact figure but certainly there was an advantage.
The effort from Leicester was massive though and nearly evened it out, personally I couldn't fault that and that was a big positive.
For all that pressure up front (especially first half) Leicester should've won!
Rubbish pal. So you actually agree that our Sarries backs were 30% quicker ? A perfect example of over exaggeration if ever I’ve seen one.
You're welcome to your opinion.
It's rubbish to suggest it's rubbish, in my opinion.
Speed is up top as well as physical.
I don't know if 30% is the exact figure but certainly there was an advantage.
The effort from Leicester was massive though and nearly evened it out, personally I couldn't fault that and that was a big positive.
You know there wasn’t a 30% difference and have tried to cloud it. That’s not far off a third so is like saying in a race the Sarries player would be around 30m in front of the Tigers player in a sprint over the pitch length. If you believe that then I feel sorry for you pal. A mere 2% difference in speed is huge just for the record.
The backs is clearly where we have been hit hardest with international call ups and injuries but let's look at that second string...
Harrison is OK - a solid back up
J Ford - was OK on the day for me but we should have better if we want to win things
Holmes - no problem
Eastmond - no problem
Owen - juries out
Thompstone - a solid back up
Worth - juries out
White - young, still learning, juries out
Hardwick - young, still learning, juries out (Malins has looked better)
Smith - is what he is - maybe could do better
I think we are exposed in the backs with a combination of how much we are stripped of our best players coupled with a bit of weakness in the second string and youngsters with promise but coming into a less than confident team.
One of the reasons we have sufferered in the last couple of weeks is because the likes of Cips, Goode and Lozowski have been snubbed by Eddie Jones. These guys are class operators who will make mince meat of any weaknesses in your second string.
I think this forum is stronger when people comment without the emotion and exaggeration that sometimes (often?) crops up. I would also hate the players to read some of the offerings on here because it would do little for their confidence when delivered in such an unconstructive way as sometimes occurs, and I wouldn't be surprised if some do read the forum.
I saw plenty of good things against Sarries. We played to the end and did compete. We had a weak patch where they scored their 3 tries and Mark McCall even said 2 of their tries were individual efforts...I agree they still count but they did not come from overall dominance at that point in the match. We all want to win at home, even the players, but we didn't. We will come through this even though it is tough to take given our success over the years.
I see our job as supporters to do just that, support through the bad times as well as the good. Personally if I didn't do that I would think I was guilty of just wanting to bask in reflected glory when times are good.
Rubbish pal. So you actually agree that our Sarries backs were 30% quicker ? A perfect example of over exaggeration if ever I’ve seen one.
You're welcome to your opinion.
It's rubbish to suggest it's rubbish, in my opinion.
Speed is up top as well as physical.
I don't know if 30% is the exact figure but certainly there was an advantage.
The effort from Leicester was massive though and nearly evened it out, personally I couldn't fault that and that was a big positive.
You know there wasn’t a 30% difference and have tried to cloud it. That’s not far off a third so is like saying in a race the Sarries player would be around 30m in front of the Tigers player in a sprint over the pitch length. If you believe that then I feel sorry for you pal. A mere 2% difference in speed is huge just for the record.
First off, I didn't say there was a 30% difference, someone else did.
We are dealing in hypothesis, I can't prove (the other posters) 30% as fact and you can't deny it, likewise you can't prove your 2% as anything other than your own theory.
Given that Leicester were strong up front it's not an over exaggeration to suggest a gulf amongst the backs and it was pretty obvious to any halfwit watching anyway!
If you were to pit most of those backs against eachother I'd put money on more Sarries finishing a third ahead of more Tigers with only Holmes and Eastmond amongst the front runners.
For the sake of argument though perhaps the overall points difference in percentage is the only matter of fact that anyone can state for certain.
I don't know it looked 30% on the pitch.
Sarries and Glous backs are on the whole the next level faster than our players.
The amount of times we got beaten in the 13/14 channel proves it, they didn't even need to keep running at 12 and 10 because they know that 8/10 if they can get 2 on 2 with the 13 and wing they would win.
Tomvarndell wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:47 am
You know there wasn’t a 30% difference and have tried to cloud it. That’s not far off a third so is like saying in a race the Sarries player would be around 30m in front of the Tigers player in a sprint over the pitch length. If you believe that then I feel sorry for you pal. A mere 2% difference in speed is huge just for the record.
First off, I didn't say there was a 30% difference, someone else did.
We are dealing in hypothesis, I can't prove (the other posters) 30% as fact and you can't deny it, likewise you can't prove your
I can't see where anybody has claimed that is what you said BFG, but you did say that 30% was no 'over exaggeration'.
I find it close to 100% disappointing that so many people on here do not appreciate that professional rugby, like pretty much all professional sports, is a game of fine margins.
I wonder if there was 30% between the fastest back and the slowest forward?
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Tomvarndell wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:47 am
You know there wasn’t a 30% difference and have tried to cloud it. That’s not far off a third so is like saying in a race the Sarries player would be around 30m in front of the Tigers player in a sprint over the pitch length. If you believe that then I feel sorry for you pal. A mere 2% difference in speed is huge just for the record.
First off, I didn't say there was a 30% difference, someone else did.
We are dealing in hypothesis, I can't prove (the other posters) 30% as fact and you can't deny it, likewise you can't prove your
I can't see where anybody has claimed that is what you said BFG, but you did say that 30% was no 'over exaggeration'.
I find it close to 100% disappointing that so many people on here do not appreciate that professional rugby, like pretty much all professional sports, is a game of fine margins.
I wonder if there was 30% between the fastest back and the slowest forward?
I question whether it is an over exaggeration!
Did you not see Sarries tries, never mind slowest forwards several of Tigers quicker players were left standing!
However all debate aside to rubbish it without any proof to the contrary is arrogant.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a subject that neither side can prove and to be honest is a complete waste of time!
Scuttle wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:25 pm
This has to be the most pointless and ridiculous exchange I have ever heard on the forum and one I have no intention of joining.
Yes...very droll
It's certainly a very hyperbolic thread - with the emphasis on the last 2 syllables!
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
BFG wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:46 pm
I question whether it is an over exaggeration!
Did you not see Sarries tries, never mind slowest forwards several of Tigers quicker players were left standing!
However all debate aside to rubbish it without any proof to the contrary is arrogant.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a subject that neither side can prove and to be honest is a complete waste of time!
Sorry Scuttle but these calumnies against Tigers players need to be addressed.
I don't know the times for the backs involved in this match but if you will allow that they run and that they are professionals; top flight 100m runners have a spread of about 7% from the world champion to the guy who comes last in every heat and never makes the final. The difference between the world champion and a decent amateur club runner does get close to 30%.
You may suggest the two are not comparable. I would suggest that it is a very valid comparison.
Unless Tigers are picking random guys off the street to play (you may believe this), you are wrong.
You are aware that if you have to turn and chase somebody who is sprinting away from you, they are getting further away while you turn and accelerate aren't you?
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
ourla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:02 pm
The backs is clearly where we have been hit hardest with international call ups and injuries but let's look at that second string...
Harrison is OK - a solid back up
J Ford - was OK on the day for me but we should have better if we want to win things
Holmes - no problem
Eastmond - no problem
Owen - juries out
Thompstone - a solid back up
Worth - juries out
White - young, still learning, juries out
Hardwick - young, still learning, juries out (Malins has looked better)
Smith - is what he is - maybe could do better
